Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> writes:
> On 9 May 2025, at 02:15, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Right. I think the attached would be amenable to that.
> It will be a bit awkward to ask "are you libressl" if we ever add support for
> something not OpenSSL based, but we could always revisit should that happen.
I was imagining that unrelated backends would simply make the method
report constant-false. But in any case, redesigning this in the light
of any future requirements doesn't seem like a big deal. What I'm
mainly after for today is just to ensure that these various which-
library-is-it tests are visibly interconnected, so that we don't
forget to check them all when things change.
regards, tom lane
