On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 10:57:54PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> LGTM, switching to ready for committer.
Thanks Daniel. I have looked at that stuff again, and committed the
patch.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 09:22:47AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not sure I see why there's a connection between moving up
> the minimum Python version and minimum OpenSSL version. Nobody is
> installing bleeding-edge Postgres on RHEL5, not even me ;-), so I
> don't especially buy Peter's lin
> On 3 Jan 2020, at 07:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 11:45:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah. The CF app doesn't understand that (and hence the cfbot ditto),
>> so you might want to repost just the currently-proposed patch to get
>> the cfbot to try it.
>
> Yes, let's d
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 11:45:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ah. The CF app doesn't understand that (and hence the cfbot ditto),
> so you might want to repost just the currently-proposed patch to get
> the cfbot to try it.
Yes, let's do that. Here you go with a v2. While on it, I have
noticed in
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 09:30:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, the referenced patch only removes the configure check for
>> SSL_get_current_compression
> The actual patch I am proposing to finish merging is
> 0003 as posted here, which is the remaining piece:
> https:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 09:30:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, the referenced patch only removes the configure check for
> SSL_get_current_compression, which is fine, but is that even
> moving any goalposts? The proposed commit message says the
> function exists down to 0.9.8, which is already o
Michael Paquier writes:
> For now, please note that I have added an entry in the CF app:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/26/2413/
BTW, the referenced patch only removes the configure check for
SSL_get_current_compression, which is fine, but is that even
moving any goalposts? The proposed com
Michael Paquier writes:
> Sorry for letting this thread down for a couple of weeks, but I was
> hesitating to apply the last patch of the series as the cleanup of the
> code related to OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 is not that much. An extra
> argument in favor of the removal is that this can allow mor
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:21:55AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2019, at 02:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Another argument in favor of dropping 1.0.0 and 0.9.8 is that
>> it is a pain to check an OpenSSL patch across that many versions,
>> multiplied by the number of Postgres branche
> On 6 Dec 2019, at 02:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Another argument in favor of dropping 1.0.0 and 0.9.8 is that
> it is a pain to check an OpenSSL patch across that many versions,
> multiplied by the number of Postgres branches in need of patching :)
That is indeed a very good argument.
cheer
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:33:23AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks. Another argument in favor of dropping 1.0.0 and 0.9.8 is that
> it is a pain to check an OpenSSL patch across that many versions,
> multiplied by the number of Postgres branches in need of patching :)
I have done nothing f
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:38:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah; also as mentioned in the other thread, 1.0.1 is still in use
> in RHEL 6, so it's hard to consider dropping that for at least another
> year. I concur with the conclusion that we can stop worrying about
> NetBSD 5, though.
Thanks.
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 5 Dec 2019, at 09:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> From the point of view of the code, the cleanup is not actually that
>> amazing I am afraid, a jump directly to 1.1.0 would remove much more
>> because the breakages were wider when we integrated it. Anyway, those
>>
> On 5 Dec 2019, at 09:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
> From the point of view of the code, the cleanup is not actually that
> amazing I am afraid, a jump directly to 1.1.0 would remove much more
> because the breakages were wider when we integrated it. Anyway, those
> cleanups are part of 0003. I
Hi all,
So, I have been looking at what we could clean up by removing support
for OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0. Here are my notes:
1) SSL_get_current_compression exists before 0.9.8, and we don't
actually make use of its configure check. So I think that it could
just be removed, as per patch 0001.
2)
15 matches
Mail list logo
