Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> Lars Kanis wrote: >>> Maybe version 2 (my initial patch) could be an alternative ? > >> Well, based on the "we don't know which different versions of openssl >> it'll break with", version 2 is no better than version 3 :( > > Yeah, if we do anything I think it should be more like #3. > > I think all or most back releases of openssl are available from > openssl.org. If someone had time to do a test compile of the proposed > patch against all of 'em (or at least all the ones we still claim to > support), it would salve my worries at least a bit. I'm not sure if > that's a big task or not, though.
I ran a build with OpenSSL 0.9.8 (default on my machine) and 0.9.7. AFAICS, only 0.9.8 is supported at all these days. There is no point in running against <0.9.7, since there was no engine support in that. I tried 0.9.7m, 0.9.7c, 0.9.8g (Ubuntu) and 0.9.8b just to be sure. But they do seem to have a policy similar to our own - no features in backbranches. I only tested building (make clean, re-configure, make in pg) and it worked fine. Default configuration on OpenSSL. This is certainly not an exhaustive test, but I think it does a fair job of bracketing the possible versions with issues. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
