> On 29 Oct 2024, at 13:53, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > On 10/29/24 05:57, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> 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. > > Seems like that would be an issue for backward comparability and upgrades.
That's undoubtedly a downside of this proposal which the GUC proposal doesn't have. -- Daniel Gustafsson
