Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wQUHF-001aiW-1X for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 May 2026 18:07:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wQUHD-00Dwe2-0o for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 May 2026 18:07:16 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wQUHC-00Dwdu-39 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 May 2026 18:07:15 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wQUHC-00000000J0H-0prA for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 May 2026 18:07:15 +0000 Received: from pro.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 64MI7AHB2120670; Fri, 22 May 2026 14:07:11 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Daniel Gustafsson cc: Postgres hackers , Jacob Champion Subject: Re: Removing broken support for OpenSSL without ECDH In-reply-to: <1787BA9F-A11C-4A7A-9252-94C470D5CBE3@yesql.se> References: <1787BA9F-A11C-4A7A-9252-94C470D5CBE3@yesql.se> Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson message dated "Fri, 22 May 2026 11:01:55 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26683.1779473230.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 11:07:10 -0700 Message-ID: <26684.1779473230@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Daniel Gustafsson writes: > That being said, using OpenSSL without ECDH support sounds like an anti-= feature > and not something we want to re-introduce support for, so I propose just > removing our useless guards as per the attached. There is clearly no ne= ed for > backpatching, but I propose applying to master as it cleans up the code. LGTM. regards, tom lane