Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0
Date: 2026-05-08 07:21:25
Message-ID: 95045A62-9A81-4AD8-BA25-D8648BD68499@yesql.se
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 8 May 2026, at 09:17, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 09:07:41AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Not sure I follow, anyone still building with a X years out of support OpenSSL
>> will most likely keep doing so regardless of what CVE's are published. It
>> could of course make backpatching trickier if thats what you mean?
>
> Argh. I've misread you here, reading a "lowest" rather than
> "highest". Documenting that 3.6 is the highest version support on
> 14-stable would also work here. My apologies for the confusion.

Ah, now it makes more sense =)

> If the patches for REL_14_STABLE to add support for 4.0 prove to be
> low-risk while messing with 1.0.1, that would the best course of
> action, of course.

I think the changes are straightforward enough that we can go ahead with them.
I'll re-test and re-post a new patchset for all branches once the minors ship.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-05-08 07:32:16 Re: Fix typo 586/686 in atomics/arch-x86.h
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-05-08 07:17:32 Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0