Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-29 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > 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

Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-28 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Yeah, there probably isn't anyone needing --disable-strong-random in > practice. The situation is slightly different between the frontend and > backend, though. It's more likely that someone might need to build libpq > on a very ancient system, but not the server.

Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 28/12/2018 01:14, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 03:56:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: More urgently, what about the lack of --disable-strong-random coverage? I feel like we should either have a buildfarm critter or two testing that code, or decide that it's

Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-27 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 03:56:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> More urgently, what about the lack of --disable-strong-random >> coverage? I feel like we should either have a buildfarm >> critter or two testing that code, or decide that it's no longer >> interesting and

Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-27 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 03:56:52PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > More urgently, what about the lack of --disable-strong-random > coverage? I feel like we should either have a buildfarm > critter or two testing that code, or decide that it's no longer > interesting and rip it out. backend_random.c, to

Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives

2018-12-27 Thread Tom Lane
I just noticed that, since I retired pademelon in August, we have exactly no buildfarm coverage of --disable-strong-random code paths. What's more, because the vast majority of the buildfarm enables --with-openssl, we're mostly just testing the punt-to-OpenSSL variant of pg_strong_random.