Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
Date: 2026-06-18 21:32:23
Message-ID: CAOYmi+kJ7rYm4DWg9CQi13Ewv_9EK0RjrKDB8a_w=cNG+mLp7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:06 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> The entire OpenSSL 3.x line will be down to just 3.5 LTS by the time we ship
> v20.

Yeah. Though RH have been apparently shipping breaking updates to
OpenSSL in RHEL 9+, so the conversation may look completely different
when we get to those EOLs.

> One complicating factor when it comes to OpenSSL is that we need the 1.1.1 API
> support in order to keep LibreSSL supported.

True -- but I think that even if your split didn't land, surrounding
the necessary code with `#ifdef LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER` would be a
big maintainability upgrade compared to "all code paths must support
both OpenSSL 1.1.1 _and_ LibreSSL which is
kind-of-not-really-the-same".

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-06-18 21:38:18 Re: Direction for test frameworks: Perl TAP vs. Python/pytest
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-06-18 21:23:50 Re: DataChecksumsStateStruct cost_delay fields and locking