On 10/29/24 10:08, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
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.
Any other opinions out there?
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
