David, all,
* David CARLIER (devnexen@gmail.com) wrote:
> > IIUC, what this code actually does is reseed itself from /dev/urandom
> > every so often and work from a PRNG in between. That's not a layer that
> > we need, because the code on top is already designed to cope with the
> > foibles of /dev/urandom --- or, to the extent it isn't, that's something
> > we have to fix anyway. So it seems like having this optionally in place
> > just reduces what we can assume about the randomness properties of
> > pg_strong_random output, which doesn't seem like a good idea.
>
> That I admit these are valid points.
Based on the discussion, it looks like this patch should be marked as
'Rejected', so I've gone ahead and done that.
We can reopen it if that's incorrect for some reason.
Thanks!
Stephen
