Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, mikael(dot)kjellstrom(at)gmail(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?
Date: 2024-04-19 05:37:35
Message-ID: ZiIDH74oDzN1x6hc@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:53:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If everything is addressed, I agree that 0001, 0003, and 0004 can go into
> PG17, the rest later.

About the PG17 bits, would you agree about a backpatch? Or perhaps
you disagree?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2024-04-19 06:07:07 Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-19 05:34:48 Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser