On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 07:34, jian he <jian.universal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Your patch works. > performance is the best amount for other options in [0]. > I don't have deep knowledge about which one is more random. >
Thanks for testing. > Currently we have to explicitly mention the lower and upper bound. > but can we do this: > just give me an int, int means the int data type can be represented. > or just give me a random bigint. > but for numeric, the full numeric values that can be represented are very big. > > Maybe we can use the special value null to achieve this > like use > select random(NULL::int,null) > to represent a random int in the full range of integers values can be > represented. > Hmm, I don't particularly like that idea. It seems pretty ugly. Now that we support literal integers in hex, with underscores, it's relatively easy to pass INT_MIN/MAX as arguments to these functions, if that's what you need. I think if we were going to have a shorthand for getting full-range random integers, it would probably be better to introduce separate no-arg functions for that. I'm not really sure if that's a sufficiently common use case to justify the effort though. Regards, Dean
