Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0
Date: 2026-05-08 07:17:32
Message-ID: af2ODKxUkLzFIiuX@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 09:07:41AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Not sure I follow, anyone still building with a X years out of support OpenSSL
> will most likely keep doing so regardless of what CVE's are published. It
> could of course make backpatching trickier if thats what you mean?

Argh. I've misread you here, reading a "lowest" rather than
"highest". Documenting that 3.6 is the highest version support on
14-stable would also work here. My apologies for the confusion.

If the patches for REL_14_STABLE to add support for 4.0 prove to be
low-risk while messing with 1.0.1, that would the best course of
action, of course.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2026-05-08 07:21:25 Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-05-08 07:09:46 Re: FOR PORTION OF does not recompute GENERATED STORED columns that depend on the range column