> On 16 Nov 2020, at 16:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> I agree with those -- either we remove the ability to choose random source >> independently of the SSL library (and then only use the windows crypto >> provider or /dev/urandom as platform-specific choices when *no* SSL library >> is used), and in that case we should not have separate #ifdef's for them. >> Or we fix the includes. Which is obviously easier, but we should take the >> time to do what we think is right long-term of course. > > FWIW, I'd vote for the former. I think the presumption that OpenSSL's > random-number machinery can be used without any other initialization is > shaky as heck.
I tend to agree, randomness is complicated enough without adding a compile time extensibility which few (if anyone) will ever use. Attached is an attempt at this. cheers ./daniel
0001-Remove-ability-to-choose-randomness-source.patch
Description: Binary data
