| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17391: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL tests fail on OpenBSD 7.0 |
| Date: | 2022-02-13 01:40:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20220213014023.y64hcdd4toqisfv3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2022-02-12 20:06:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I think the remaining question here is whether, and if so when,
> to back-patch faa189c93. I'm not sure that the benefit is worth
> the risk of new problems (though maybe I'm just feeling particularly
> pessimistic because of the regressions we've found in this week's
> releases). Leaving aside the behavior of the ssl tests, which
> few people would run anyway, it seems like the benefit is just
> to replace a not-very-helpful error message with a more-helpful
> one. That's worth something, but how much?
Yea, not sure either. Maybe slightly leaning towards not backpatching for now?
If people complain and we've gained a bit more confidence, we can still do so?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-13 21:50:29 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-13 01:06:24 | Re: BUG #17391: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL tests fail on OpenBSD 7.0 |