this bug is only for win32 system.
On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom().
so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line.
and,
Because random() function return integer (2byte), this return integer number
need filtering.
so, I changed random() % 255 line.
on win32, original code
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this bug is only for win32 system.
On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom().
so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line.
But there is already an srandom() call during backend startup.
Because random() function return
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:18:41AM +0900, Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote:
this bug is only for win32 system.
On mingw32 random() function have to be initialized by srandom().
so, I put srandom(time(NULL)) line.
and,
Because random() function return integer (2byte), this return integer
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote:
I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
What is the purpose of this addition?
+ srandom(time(NULL));
+
Is resetting the seed on each call a good idea?
cheers
andrew
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IGZ1bmN0aW9uIGdlbl9zYWx0KCkgaW4gY29udHJpYi9w
Z2NyeXB0byBoYWQgYnVnIG9uIHdpbjMyLg0KDQpJIHBhdGNoZWQgY29udHJp
Yi9wZ2NyeXB0by9yYW5kb20uYyBmaWxlLg0KDQo=
Unencoded text would be nicer to reply to ...
But anyway, why are you
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:28AM +0900, Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote:
I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
Could you describe the bug bit more?
As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it
Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it
already, and doing it more will make matters only worse.
Yes. I think we had some discussion about that already, and concluded
it was a bad idea to insert ad-hoc srandom calls.
I would not
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would not object to just sticking ' 255' there,
The patch actually says '% 255' which is a whole different animal;
it still requires explaining though.
Yeah, I was hinting that ' 255' I could
