On 2023-02-07 Tu 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3 *is*
supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
also supported there. On the whole though, it seems more useful
today for that test to pass with 3.x than for it to pass with 0.9.8.
And I can't see investing effort to make it do both (but if Peter
wants to, I won't stand in the way).
Cutting support for 0.9.8 in oldest branches would be a very risky
move, but as you say, if that only involves a failure in the SSL
tests while still allowing anything we have to work, fine by me to
live with that.
Question: is anybody around here still testing with 0.9.8 (or 1.0.x)
at all? The systems I had that had that version on them are dead.
In the last 30 days, only the following buildfarm animals have reported running the ssl checks on the relevant branches:
crake
eelpout
fairywren
gokiburi
hachi
longfin
I don't think any of these runs openssl <= 1.0.x. If we want to preserve testability for those very old versions we should actually be doing some testing. Or we could just move on and backpatch this as I've suggested. I'll be pretty surprised if we get a single complaint.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com