On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:38:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The discussion we had last year concluded that we were OK with
> dropping 1.0.1 support when RHEL6 goes out of extended support
> (June 2024 per this thread, I didn't check it). Seems like we
> should have the same policy for RHEL7. Also, calling Photon 3
> dead because it went EOL three days ago seems over-hasty.
Yeah. A bunch of users of Photon are VMware (or you could say
Broadcom) product appliances, and I'd suspect that quite a lot of them
rely on Photon 3 for their base OS image. Upgrading that stuff is not
easy work in my experience because they need to cope with a bunch of
embedded services.
> Bottom line for me is that pulling 1.0.1 support now is OK,
> but I think pulling 1.0.2 is premature.
Yeah, I guess so. At least that seems like the safest conclusion
currently here. The build-time check on X509_get_signature_info()
would still be required.
I'd love being able to rip out the internal locking logic currently in
libpq as LibreSSL has traces of CRYPTO_lock(), as far as I've checked,
and we rely on its existence.
--
Michael