On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote: > On 09/05/2016 02:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Judging by the number of people who have popped up recently with their >> own OpenSSL 1.1 patches, I think there is going to be a lot of demand for >> back-patching some sort of 1.1 support into our back branches. All this >> talk of refactoring does not sound very back-patchable. Should we be >> thinking of what we can extract that is back-patchable? > > My idea is that the first of my four patches contains the minimum changes > needed to add support for 1.1 and tries to do as little refactoring as > possible while the other patches refactor things. I am not sure about if > anything of the other patches should be backpatched.
>From what I can see of the 4 patches proposed, those are not that much invasive, so a backpatch of those is really doable. But yes let's keep the refactoring only for HEAD. That's definitely the safest approach. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
