Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> So this patch has ignored the possibility of not having pg_strong_random.
> I assumed that pg_strong_random is always available,
... which is wrong. Every other call of it is wrapped in
#ifdef HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM, and so must this one be.
We can use the same error message though, I suppose.
Adjusted and pushed.
regards, tom lane
