On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 03:56:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > More urgently, what about the lack of --disable-strong-random > coverage? I feel like we should either have a buildfarm > critter or two testing that code, or decide that it's no longer > interesting and rip it out. backend_random.c, to name just > one place, has a complex enough !HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM code path > that I don't feel comfortable letting it go totally untested.
If that proves to not be useful, just dropping the switch sounds like a good option to me. I would be curious to hear Heikki on the matter as he has introduced the switch in the v10 time-frame. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
