Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG20 Minimum Dependency Thread
Date: 2026-07-09 05:35:28
Message-ID: ak8zIOUFZ9x6ypi2@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.

That would mean to drop OpenSSL 1.1.1, as there is nothing in-between
up to 3.0.0. That feels OK to drop for PG20, even if support for 3.0
will end in a few months, as of September 2026:
https://openssl-library.org/roadmap/
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message solai v 2026-07-09 05:38:20 Re: [PATCH] no table rewrite when set column type to constrained domain
Previous Message vignesh C 2026-07-09 05:31:02 Re: PSQL - prevent describe listing tables that are already in listed schemas