Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> 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. And libpq only needs > pg_strong_random() for SCRAM support. It'd be kind of nice to still be > able to build libpq without pg_strong_random(), with SCRAM disabled. But > that's awkward to arrange with autoconf, there is no "--libpq-only" > flag. Perhaps replace the backend !HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM code with #error.
> +1 for just ripping it out, nevertheless. If someone needs libpq on an > ancient system, they can build an older version of libpq as a last resort. The other workaround that remains available is to build --with-openssl. So the arguments for keeping !HAVE_STRONG_RANDOM seem pretty weak from here. regards, tom lane