Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:19:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Even if we'd try to force our internal implementation of SHA256 on
>> already-released branches instead of the one of OpenSSL, this would be
>> an ABI break for compiled modules expected to work on this released
>> branch as OpenSSL's internal SHA structures don't exactly match with
>> our own implementation (think just about sizeof() or such).
> Well, we could as well add one extra SHA API layer pointing to the EVP
> structures and APIs with new names, leaving the original ones in
> place, and then have SCRAM use the new ones, but I'd rather not go
> down that road for the back-branches.
Given the tiny number of complaints to date, it seems sufficient to me
to deal with this in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
