Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Jun-17, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>> 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.
> In different ma
On 2019-Jun-17, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
> 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.
In different machines or different build opti
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
wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-08, Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> > While
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 e
Hi,
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
