Re: initial random incompatibility
| От | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: initial random incompatibility |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAC8Q8tKeB77nP34Om_bJKFihVKS-FUn-h1CS79zW8UCk_ROpzw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: initial random incompatibility (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: initial random incompatibility
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
I cannot find traces, but I believe there was a Twitter poll on which random do people get after setseed() in postgres, and we found at least three distinct sequences across different builds.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2019-Jun-08, Euler Taveira wrote:
> While fixing the breakage caused by the default number of trailing
> digits output for real and double precision, I noticed that first
> random() call after setseed(0) doesn't return the same value as 10 and
> earlier (I tested 9.4 and later). It changed an expected behavior and
> it should be listed in incompatibilities section of the release notes.
> Some applications can rely on such behavior.
Hmm. Tom argued about the backwards-compatibility argument in
the discussion that led to that commit:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3859.1545849900@sss.pgh.pa.us
I think this is worth listing in the release notes. Can you propose
some wording?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: