| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: random() (was Re: New GUC to sample log queries) |
| Date: | 2018-12-27 01:34:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20181227013458.GF2106@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:45:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I am not sure I buy the argument that this is a security hazard, but
> there are other reasons to question the use of random() here, some of
> which you stated yourself above. I wonder whether we should
> establish a project policy to avoid use of random() for internal
> purposes, ie try to get to a point where drandom() is the only
> caller in the backend.
Agreed for all three points.
> A quick grep says that there's a dozen or so callers, so this patch
> certainly isn't the only offender ... but should we make an effort
> to convert them all to use, say, pg_erand48()? I think all the
> existing callers could happily share a process-wide random state,
> so we could make a wrapper that's no harder to use than random().
Another possibility would be to extend a bit more the use of
pg_strong_random(), though it is designed to really be used in cases
like authentication where the random bytes are strong for
cryptography. pg_erand48() would be a good step forward.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-27 01:35:22 | Re: pgsql: Fix failure to check for open() or fsync() failures. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-27 01:15:34 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |