Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
Date: 2020-11-18 09:43:35
Message-ID: 168426A3-D05C-4B4A-9E64-1DC7AC4DEC67@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 18 Nov 2020, at 09:54, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:25:44AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Technically that is what it does, except for setting the USE_*RANDOM variables
>> for non-OpenSSL builds. We could skip that too, which I think is what you're
>> proposing, but it seems to me that we'll end up with another set of entangled
>> logic in pg_strong_random if we do since there then needs to be precedence in
>> checking (one might be on Windows with OpenSSL for example, where OpenSSL >
>> Windows API).
>
> Yes, I am suggesting to just remove both USE_*_RANDOM flags, and use
> the following structure instead in pg_strong_random.c for both the
> init and main functions:
> #ifdef USE_OPENSSL
> /* foo */
> #elif WIN32
> /* bar*/
> #else
> /* hoge urandom */
> #endif
>
> And complain in configure.ac if we miss urandom for the fallback case.
>
> Now, it would not be the first time I suggest something on this thread
> that nobody likes :)

While it does simplify configure.ac, I'm just not a fan of the strict ordering
which is required without the labels even implying it. But that might just be
my personal preference.

cheers ./daniel

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2020-11-18 09:56:09 Re: Parallel copy
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2020-11-18 09:25:26 Re: Add LWLock blocker(s) information