Re: [PATCH] random_normal function

> On Dec 9, 2022, at 3:20 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 9, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>>> Final tme, with fixes from cirrusci.
>>>
>>> Well, why not.  Seems like you would use that a lot with PostGIS.
>>>
>>> #include <math.h>              /* for ldexp() */
>>> +#include <float.h>             /* for DBL_EPSILON */
>>> And be careful with the order here.
>>
>> Should be ... alphabetical?
>>
>>> +static void
>>> +drandom_check_default_seed()
>>> We always use (void) rather than empty parenthesis sets.
>>
>> OK
>>
>>> I would not leave that unchecked, so I think that you should add
>>> something in ramdom.sql.  Or would you prefer switching some of
>>> the regression tests be switched so as they use the new normal
>>> function?
>>
>> Reading through those tests... seems like they will (rarely) fail. Is that... OK?
>> The tests seem to be mostly worried that random() starts returning constants, which seems like a good thing to test
for(is the random number generating returning randomness). 
>> An obvious test for this function is that the mean and stddev converge on the supplied parameters, given enough
inputs,which is actually kind of the opposite test. I use the same random number generator as the uniform distribution,
sothat aspect is already covered by the existing tests. 
>>
>>> (Ahem.  Bonus points for a random_string() returning a bytea, based on
>>> pg_strong_random().)
>>
>> Would love to. Separate patch of bundled into this one?
>
> Here's the original with suggestions applied and a random_string that applies on top of it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> P

Clearing up one CI failure.