Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> writes:
> On 04/16/2017 03:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Back-patch that patch, probably also including the followup adjustments
>> in 86029b31e and 36a3be654.
> Given that I cannot recall seeing any complaints about the behavior of
> 9.4 compared to 9.3 I am leaning towards #1. That way there are fewer
> different versions of our OpenSSL code.
Yeah, I was thinking about that point too. Barring objections I'll
do #1 and then move forward with the openssl 1.1 backport.
regards, tom lane
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: