Thank you Robert. I am in the process of patching this. -Parag On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:43 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 5:05 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > ISTM that the fix here is to not use a spinlock for whatever the > contention is > > on, rather than improve the RNG. > > I'm not convinced that we should try to improve the RNG, but surely we > need to put parentheses around pg_prng_double(&pg_global_prng_state) + > 0.5. IIUC, the current logic is making us multiply the spin delay by a > value between 0 and 1 when what was intended was that it should be > multiplied by a value between 0.5 and 1.5. > > If I'm reading this correctly, this was introduced here: > > commit 59bb147353ba274e0836d06f429176d4be47452c > Author: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > Date: Fri Feb 3 12:45:47 2006 +0000 > > Update random() usage so ranges are inclusive/exclusive as required. > > -- > Robert Haas > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
