Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
Date
Msg-id 168426A3-D05C-4B4A-9E64-1DC7AC4DEC67@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 18 Nov 2020, at 09:54, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Add LWLock blocker(s) information
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel copy