| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, 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: | 2024-05-06 23:31:29 |
| Message-ID: | ZjloUTnGHwtv8s89@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> They are no-ops when linking against v18, but writing an extension which
> targets all supported versions of postgres along with their respective
> supported OpenSSL versions make them still required, or am I missing something?
Yeah, that depends on how much version you expect your application to
work on. Still it seems to me that there's value in mentioning that
if your application does not care about anything older than OpenSSL
1.1.0, like PG 18 assuming that this patch is merged, then these calls
are pointless for HEAD. The routine definitions would be around only
for the .so compatibility.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-05-07 01:17:49 | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-06 23:31:10 | WHERE CURRENT OF with RLS quals that are ctid conditions |