> On Dec 9, 2022, at 3:20 PM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 9, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 8, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote: >>>> Final tme, with fixes from cirrusci. >>> >>> Well, why not. Seems like you would use that a lot with PostGIS. >>> >>> #include <math.h> /* for ldexp() */ >>> +#include <float.h> /* for DBL_EPSILON */ >>> And be careful with the order here. >> >> Should be ... alphabetical? >> >>> +static void >>> +drandom_check_default_seed() >>> We always use (void) rather than empty parenthesis sets. >> >> OK >> >>> I would not leave that unchecked, so I think that you should add >>> something in ramdom.sql. Or would you prefer switching some of >>> the regression tests be switched so as they use the new normal >>> function? >> >> Reading through those tests... seems like they will (rarely) fail. Is >> that... OK? >> The tests seem to be mostly worried that random() starts returning >> constants, which seems like a good thing to test for (is the random number >> generating returning randomness). >> An obvious test for this function is that the mean and stddev converge on >> the supplied parameters, given enough inputs, which is actually kind of the >> opposite test. I use the same random number generator as the uniform >> distribution, so that aspect is already covered by the existing tests. >> >>> (Ahem. Bonus points for a random_string() returning a bytea, based on >>> pg_strong_random().) >> >> Would love to. Separate patch of bundled into this one? > > Here's the original with suggestions applied and a random_string that applies > on top of it. > > Thanks! > > P
Clearing up one CI failure.
random_normal_06a.patch
Description: Binary data
random_normal_06b.patch
Description: Binary data
