pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: byavuz81@gmail.com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: BUG #17391: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL tests fail on OpenBSD 7.0
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:06:24 -0500
Message-ID: <2508106.1644714384@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+hUKGKF-gUwOQFLvoU5X1Npe_EzPFaGhG-_btFetkyXyh1yRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C44CE9FB-B37E-47D3-924B-4AF808AE98B1@yesql.se>
	<887CBA28-0942-4084-BE09-FBE0D6A1DB53@yesql.se>
	<621771.1644098845@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<635760.1644108785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1113966.1644280235@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<C112C400-2CB5-4DCA-A699-00DC0333B665@yesql.se>
	<1537890.1644462214@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1952254.1644540297@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20220211011025.ek7exh6owpzjyudn@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<1955929.1644542728@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20220211015455.mkl6cvstttp5zfco@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<1959196.1644544971@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<2077573.1644599439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<2187263.1644616494@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<2458773.1644702998@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGKF-gUwOQFLvoU5X1Npe_EzPFaGhG-_btFetkyXyh1yRA@mail.gmail.com>

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I went ahead and pushed the patches-under-discussion (the larger
>> one only to HEAD, for now).  I've confirmed that the ssl tests
>> are solid now under OpenBSD 7.0, on bare metal as well as on the
>> VM I was using before.  They are still broken under OpenBSD 6.8,
>> which seems interesting but not so interesting that I want to
>> spend more time on it (seeing that 6.8 is EOL as far as
>> openbsd.org is concerned).  Does anyone want to recheck 6.9?

> Looks good:

Thanks for checking!

So I think the remaining question here is whether, and if so when,
to back-patch faa189c93.  I'm not sure that the benefit is worth
the risk of new problems (though maybe I'm just feeling particularly
pessimistic because of the regressions we've found in this week's
releases).  Leaving aside the behavior of the ssl tests, which
few people would run anyway, it seems like the benefit is just
to replace a not-very-helpful error message with a more-helpful
one.  That's worth something, but how much?

			regards, tom lane





view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2508106.1644714384@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../2508106.1644714384@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2508106.1644714384@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, thomas.munro@gmail.com, daniel@yesql.se, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi, michael@paquier.xyz
  Subject: Re: BUG #17391: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL tests fail on OpenBSD 7.0
  In-Reply-To: <2508106.1644714384@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox