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.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to