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 name just
> one place, has a complex enough !HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM code path
> that I don't feel comfortable letting it go totally untested.
If that proves to not be useful, just dropping the switch sounds like
a good option to me. I would be curious to hear Heikki on the matter
as he has introduced the switch in the v10 time-frame.
--
Michael
