Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
Date: 2026-07-09 16:58:30
Message-ID: CAOYmi+=85_4ntFof=PKkDMm38TH-9xevCJ_i4R2EWfUGeqKoKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 10:35 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> That would mean to drop OpenSSL 1.1.1, as there is nothing in-between
> up to 3.0.0. That feels OK to drop for PG20, even if support for 3.0
> will end in a few months, as of September 2026:

I told Daniel a while back that I thought 3.0 was likely to be the
"new 1.0.2" (i.e. distros will keep it alive for *way* too long), but
I also didn't anticipate RHEL jumping to 3.5 in the middle of a
release line. So maybe Debian and Ubuntu will surprise me too?
Post-quantum stuff has an awful lot of momentum building, it seems.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-07-09 17:03:22 Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2026-07-09 16:31:53 Re: Hash index bucket split bug