* Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > However, is there something that's fundamentally better with the OpenSSL
> > implementation? Or should we just keep *just* the #else branch in the code,
> > the part we've imported from OpenBSD?
>
> Good question. I think that we want both, giving priority to OpenSSL
> if it is there. Usually their things prove to have more entropy, but I
> didn't look at their code to be honest. If we only use the OpenBSD
> stuff, it would be a good idea to refresh the in-core code. This is
> from OpenBSD of 2002.
I agree that we definitely want to use the OpenSSL functions when they
are available.
> > I'm not sure how common a build without openssl is in the real world though.
> > RPMs, DEBs, Windows installers etc all build with OpenSSL. But we probably
> > don't want to make it mandatory, no...
>
> I don't think that it is this much common to have an enterprise-class
> build of Postgres without SSL, but each company has always its own
> reasons, so things could exist.
I agree that it's useful to have the support if PG isn't built with
OpenSSL for some reason.
Thanks!
Stephen