> On 26 Oct 2024, at 20:10, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
> Rather than depend on figuring out if we are in FIPS_mode in a portable way, > I think the GUC is simpler and sufficient. Why not do that and just use a > better name, e.g. legacy_crypto_enabled or something similar (bike-shedding > welcomed) as in the attached. I'm not very enthusiastic about adding a GUC to match a system property like that for the same reason why we avoid GUCs with transitive dependencies. Re-reading the thread and thinking about I think the best solution would be to split these functions off into their own extension. -- Daniel Gustafsson
