On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 08:06:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Leaving things in their current state is fine by me. Would it be > > better to add a note about the business with 3.0 though? > > What do you envision saying? "We don't need to do anything here > for 3.0" doesn't seem helpful. Nope, but the idea would be to keep around a note that we may want to revisit this area of the code based on the state of upstream, because our code is currently shaped based on problems that OpenSSL has dealt with. I am not completely sure, but something among the line of: "OpenSSL 1.1.1 and older versions return nothing on an unexpected EOF, and errno may not be set. 3.0 reports SSL_ERROR_SSL with a meaningful error set on the stack, so this could be reworked once support for older versions is removed." Perhaps that's just nannyism from my side, this is really minor at the end. -- Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
