From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 vs old branches
In-reply-to: <c8f06082-527b-1b9c-139b-64da2b63f359@dunslane.net>
References: <73e646d3-8653-1a1c-0a39-739872b591b0@dunslane.net> <2676333.1675700037@sss.pgh.pa.us> <c8f06082-527b-1b9c-139b-64da2b63f359@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Mon, 06 Feb 2023 16:19:30 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2840050.1675720868.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 17:01:08 -0500
Message-ID: <2840051.1675720868@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2840051.1675720868%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 2023-02-06 Mo 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So presumably, changing this test would break it for OpenSSL 0.9.8,
>> which is still nominally supported in those branches.  On the other
>> hand, this test isn't run by default, so users would likely never
>> notice anyway.

> Presumably we don't have any buildfarm animals running with such old 
> versions of openssl, or they would be failing the same test on release 
> >= 13.

That test isn't run by default in the buildfarm either, no?

But indeed, probably nobody in the community is testing such builds
at all.  I did have such setups on my old dinosaur BF animals, but
they bit the dust last year for unrelated reasons.  I wonder how
realistic it is to claim that we still support those old OpenSSL
versions.

			regards, tom lane