On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>>> How about instead calling RAND_cleanup() after each backend fork?
>
>> Attached is a patch that adds RAND_cleanup() to fork_process().
>
> I remain unconvinced that this is the best solution.  Anybody else have
> an opinion?

Do you have knowledge about systems that have /dev/random (blocking)
but not /dev/urandom (non-blocking)?  The only argument I see against
RAND_cleanup() is that postgres might eat entropy from /dev/random (blocking)
and cause both other programs and itself block, waiting for more entropy.

But this can only happen on systems that don't have /dev/urandom.

Note: reading from /dev/urandom does not affect /dev/random.

-- 
marko

In response to

• Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on at 2013-01-13 22:46:12 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on at 2013-01-14 13:00:42 from Noah Misch

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Noah Misch	Date: 2013-01-14 13:00:42
	Subject: Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on
Previous:	From: Andres Freund	Date: 2013-01-14 12:04:00
	Subject: Re: passing diff options to pg_regress