Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Michael Paquier 2016-09-15 <CAB7nPqQu1GpMzkB4S6XO0_+1cAUx==RDVF70vCmDytuA=nCHiQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> > > I backpatched this to 9.5, but not further than that. The functions this
> > > modified were moved around in 9.5, so the patch wouldn't apply as is. It
> > > wouldn't be difficult to back-patch further if there's demand, but I'm not
> > > eager to do that until someone complains.
> >
> > Not going older than 9.5 may be fine:
> > https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2014/12/23/the-new-release-strategy/
> > https://wiki.freebsd.org/OpenSSL
> > As far as I can see 1.0.2 would be supported until Dec 2019, so that
> > would just overlap with 9.4's EOL.
>
> I'm afraid it's not that easy - Debian 9 (stretch) will release at the
> beginning of next year, and apt.postgresql.org will want to build
> 9.2/9.3/9.4 for that distribution. I guess yum.postgresql.org will
> have the same problem with the next Fedora release.
I suppose some interested party could grab the patch that Heikki
committed to the new branches and produce a back-patch that can be
applied to the older branches.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services