| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
| Date: | 2024-05-03 19:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | 2729258.1714764093@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> On 03.05.24 10:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> They are no-ops when linking against v18, but writing an extension which
>> targets all supported versions of postgres along with their respective
>> supported OpenSSL versions make them still required, or am I missing something?
> I don't think extensions come into play here, since this is libpq, so
> only the shared library interface compatibility matters.
Yeah, server-side extensions don't really seem to be at hazard,
but doesn't the argument apply to client-side applications and
libraries that want to work across different PG/OpenSSL versions?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-03 20:33:33 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-03 19:02:12 | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |