Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 in 9.3 and 9.2.

  2. Support OpenSSL 1.1.0 in 9.4 branch.

  3. Support OpenSSL 1.1.0.

  1. OpenSSL support in our back branches

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-04-15T22:04:00Z

    I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5
branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that
it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later.  The failures are
unsurprising given that commit 593d4e47d wasn't back-patched further
than 9.5, but I wonder whether it isn't time to do that now.

Alternatively, we could ask anchovy's owner to remove --with-openssl
from its configuration for pre-9.5 branches, but there are going to
be more and more buildfarm critters with this issue.

			regards, tom lane

  2. Re: OpenSSL support in our back branches

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2017-04-15T22:06:49Z

    On 2017-04-15 18:04:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5
> branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that
> it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later.  The failures are
> unsurprising given that commit 593d4e47d wasn't back-patched further
> than 9.5, but I wonder whether it isn't time to do that now.

+1.

I think Andreas already did some of the required work in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/0c817abb-3f7d-20fb-583a-58f7593a0bea%40proxel.se


> Alternatively, we could ask anchovy's owner to remove --with-openssl
> from its configuration for pre-9.5 branches, but there are going to
> be more and more buildfarm critters with this issue.

Not just critters, there'll likely also be distributions running into
the issues, too :(

- Andres

  3. Re: OpenSSL support in our back branches

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2017-04-15T23:13:04Z

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-15 18:04:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see that buildfarm member anchovy has been failing in pre-9.5
>> branches for the last several weeks, with symptoms suggesting that
>> it's been updated to openssl 1.1.0 or later.  The failures are
>> unsurprising given that commit 593d4e47d wasn't back-patched further
>> than 9.5, but I wonder whether it isn't time to do that now.

> +1.

> I think Andreas already did some of the required work in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/0c817abb-3f7d-20fb-583a-58f7593a0bea%40proxel.se

Oh, right.  I'll see what I can do with that.

			regards, tom lane