On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Of course, the weak spot in this analysis is the assumption that there > are actually 122 independent bits in the value. It's not difficult to > imagine that systems with crummy random() implementations might only have > something like 32 bits worth of real randomness.
Obviously you can't use random(). That's why I talked about cryptographic PRNGs, crypto libraries do proper seeding and generate reliably random numbers all the time. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers