Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives
Date
Msg-id 965.1546101571@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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 OpenSSL".  So I'm wondering why configure is
coded to prefer OpenSSL.

I'm going to go do some timing checks on some other platforms, but
this result suggests that we may need to question that choice.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Garbage contents after running autoconf 2.69
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use