Re: LibreSSL and OpenSSL separation in libpq to support 1.1.1 deprecation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: LibreSSL and OpenSSL separation in libpq to support 1.1.1 deprecation
Date: 2026-08-12 09:51:57
Message-ID: f3806b11-7d89-4888-8cdd-4ec453b5abe3@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09.07.26 23:14, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The attached implements LibreSSL as a separate TLS library implementation (*)
> in libpq with fe-secure-libressl.c and be-secure-libressl.c along with build
> and test infrastructure.

I'm skeptical about this approach. What has been presented so far
doesn't convince me that the differences between the openssl and the
libressl variants will be larger than their commonalities.

As an example, my recent patch [0] works just the same on both (AFAICT).
I didn't have to worry about the differences at all.

Under the proposed system, I would have to make the same code changes
twice, test everything twice (including obtaining libressl in the first
place and set up a separate build for it). Doesn't sound appealing.

Another possible future of the proposed system is that changes and
improvements for the libressl variant are forgotten or just skipped,
which would lead to it degrading over time, while now at least it is
sort of dragged along by force.

[0]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/953bceb7-340d-4717-9682-0ebe65c4b57e%40eisentraut.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2026-08-12 10:31:20 RE: 019_replslot_limit.pl might fail due to checkpoint skipped
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2026-08-12 09:41:47 Re: Error handling in after-startup shmem requests