Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility
Date: 2020-06-03 05:26:07
Message-ID: 20200603052607.GH89559@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Honestly, I think we've spent plenty of time on this already. I don't
> see a problem with each module having its own certificate(s) - that
> makes them more self-contained -  nor any great need to have the targets
> named the same.

Yeah, I don't see much point in combining both of them as those
modules have different assumptions behind the files built. Now I
agree with Peter's point to use the same Makefile rule names in both
files so as it gets easier to grep for all instances.

So, src/test/ssl/ being the oldest one, ssl_passphrase_callback should
just do s/ssl-files/sslfiles/.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-06-03 05:27:51 Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-06-03 05:19:10 Re: SIGSEGV from START_REPLICATION 0/XXXXXXX in XLogSendPhysical () at walsender.c:2762