On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 03:27:58PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> +1 for just ripping it out, nevertheless. If someone needs libpq on
> an ancient system, they can build an older version of libpq as a
> last resort.
Okay, let's do the cleanup then. I am just going to create a thread
on the m
I wrote:
> Further to this ... I was just doing some measurements to see how much
> it'd add to backend startup time if we start using pg_strong_random()
> to set the initial random seed. The answer, at least on my slightly
> long-in-the-tooth RHEL6 box, is "about 25 usec using /dev/urandom,
> or
Further to this ... I was just doing some measurements to see how much
it'd add to backend startup time if we start using pg_strong_random()
to set the initial random seed. The answer, at least on my slightly
long-in-the-tooth RHEL6 box, is "about 25 usec using /dev/urandom,
or about 80 usec using
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Yeah, there probably isn't anyone needing --disable-strong-random in
> practice. The situation is slightly different between the frontend and
> backend, though. It's more likely that someone might need to build libpq
> on a very ancient system, but not the server. A
On 28/12/2018 01:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
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
Michael Paquier writes:
> 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
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
I just noticed that, since I retired pademelon in August, we have
exactly no buildfarm coverage of --disable-strong-random code paths.
What's more, because the vast majority of the buildfarm enables
--with-openssl, we're mostly just testing the punt-to-OpenSSL
variant of pg_strong_random. Checking
