> On 10 Oct 2025, at 02:11, Jacob Champion <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 4:53 PM Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does it mean that we introduce something like pg_fast_random() and >> packagers can select it as the random number generation function >> instead of pg_strong_random()? Or can packagers select the function >> used in pg_strong_random()? > > The latter -- packagers should be able to select the implementation of > pg_strong_random(). I think pg_fast_random() is likely to be a bad > abstraction if we don't have more use cases to guide it.
I am very much agreement with this. -- Daniel Gustafsson
