Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibnOL-0002oU-8x for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:13:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibnOJ-0000m6-23 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:13:35 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibnOI-0000lz-Lc for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:13:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ibnOG-0003jD-8s for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:13:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xB2FDQ8w029854; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:13:26 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Michael Paquier , Magnus Hagander , Daniel Gustafsson , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Update minimum SSL version In-reply-to: <7e217273-b550-96e5-f36f-a818ac4b5d9b@2ndquadrant.com> References: <224FD25C-BA10-44FA-95AA-F97C35FB3BB0@yesql.se> <20191129125727.GN2505@paquier.xyz> <13786.1575041447@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20191130024345.GD99291@paquier.xyz> <22675.1575083214@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7e217273-b550-96e5-f36f-a818ac4b5d9b@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:56:25 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29852.1575299606.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:13:26 -0500 Message-ID: <29853.1575299606@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 2019-11-30 04:06, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the real question we have to answer is this: are we intent on >> making people upgrade ancient openssl installations? > The trade-off is that this makes the defaults better for the vast > majority of users and gives users of really old systems a nudge that > they are no longer in compliance with industry best practices. You need > manual steps to set up SSL anyway, so this doesn't introduce an entirely > new kind of requirement for the latter group of users. True. I'm okay with this as long as we adapt the ssl test suite as per your other reply. regards, tom lane