Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Michael Paquier 2016-09-15 > <CAB7nPqQu1GpMzkB4S6XO0_+1cAUx==RDVF70vCmDytuA=nc...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > I backpatched this to 9.5, but not further than that. The functions this > > > modified were moved around in 9.5, so the patch wouldn't apply as is. It > > > wouldn't be difficult to back-patch further if there's demand, but I'm not > > > eager to do that until someone complains. > > > > Not going older than 9.5 may be fine: > > https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2014/12/23/the-new-release-strategy/ > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/OpenSSL > > As far as I can see 1.0.2 would be supported until Dec 2019, so that > > would just overlap with 9.4's EOL. > > I'm afraid it's not that easy - Debian 9 (stretch) will release at the > beginning of next year, and apt.postgresql.org will want to build > 9.2/9.3/9.4 for that distribution. I guess yum.postgresql.org will > have the same problem with the next Fedora release.
I suppose some interested party could grab the patch that Heikki committed to the new branches and produce a back-patch that can be applied to the older branches. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers