Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o43Gh-0000XU-K9 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:31:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o43Gf-0003Yp-WC for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:31:50 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o43Gf-0003Wv-Na for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:31:49 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1o43Gd-0000oT-Dl for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:31:48 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 25MGVj7q3523930; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:31:45 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Jacob Champion cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi , peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, Michael Paquier , byavuz81@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17522: While using --with-ssl=openssl and PG_TEST_EXTRA='ssl' options, SSL test fails on OpenBSD 7.1 In-reply-to: References: <17522-bfcd5c603b5f4daa@postgresql.org> <20220621.092753.452165241922345774.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <3091666.1655846153@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3515417.1655914607@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Jacob Champion message dated "Wed, 22 Jun 2022 09:28:56 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3523928.1655915505.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:31:45 -0400 Message-ID: <3523929.1655915505@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jacob Champion writes: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 9:16 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> Why not? We're still in beta, and pretty early at that. > Mostly just that the test failure isn't new behavior in 15, ... which raises the question of whether we should back-patch ... > Moving from lax to strict validation means plenty > of IETF spec reading to make sure we don't throw away useful hostnames > by accident. True. I'd be content to disallow '/' and move on. Or we could just drop this test case. regards, tom lane