Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
Date: 2026-07-08 18:51:06
Message-ID: CAOYmi+n+xPSXB3y9uKNTkJrneuROTLYCarjS7WRob_cC+-DDgQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> $ rpm -q python3
> python3-3.9.25-7.el9_8.x86_64
> $ rpm -q openssl
> openssl-3.5.5-4.el9_8.x86_64
>
> So in the Red Hat universe I think we could safely expect a minimum
> of OpenSSL 3.5.

Yeah (and I think their decision to upgrade to 3.5 caused major
ripples recently).

> But that doesn't matter much given that your list
> shows other LTS distros still on 3.0.

Right. I think 3.0 would be a reasonable floor for PG20, honestly. I'm
a little concerned about how long the Deb-alikes are going to end up
pinning it, but... one step at a time.

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2026-07-08 18:40:48 Re: [PATCH] Add RetrieveInstrumentation hook for CustomScan providers