| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more |
| Date: | 2016-09-05 03:00:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQaCrf1NCQ=H4UTjusLakvQeTq0iqecNqbA_C=nnUvmsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> On 09/05/2016 02:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Judging by the number of people who have popped up recently with their
>> own OpenSSL 1.1 patches, I think there is going to be a lot of demand for
>> back-patching some sort of 1.1 support into our back branches. All this
>> talk of refactoring does not sound very back-patchable. Should we be
>> thinking of what we can extract that is back-patchable?
>
> My idea is that the first of my four patches contains the minimum changes
> needed to add support for 1.1 and tries to do as little refactoring as
> possible while the other patches refactor things. I am not sure about if
> anything of the other patches should be backpatched.
From what I can see of the 4 patches proposed, those are not that much
invasive, so a backpatch of those is really doable. But yes let's keep
the refactoring only for HEAD. That's definitely the safest approach.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-09-05 03:12:01 | Re: [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-09-05 02:47:24 | Re: Logical decoding slots can go backwards when used from SQL, docs are wrong |