Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives
Date: 2018-12-29 16:39:31
Message-ID: 965.1546101571@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-29 19:12:55 Re: add_partial_path() may remove dominated path but still in use
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-12-29 15:36:02 Re: Garbage contents after running autoconf 2.69