On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:31, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, that's probably a fair point. However, all the existing pgbench > random functions are using it, so I think it's fair enough for > permute() to do the same (and actually 2^48 is pretty huge). Switching > to a 64-bit PRNG might not be a bad idea, but I think that's something > we'd want to do across the board, and so I think it should be out of > scope for this patch. >
Of course the immediate counter-argument to changing the existing random functions would be that doing so would break lots of people's tests, and no one would thank us for that. Still, I think that, since the existing random functions use a 48-bit PRNG, it's not unreasonable for permute() to do the same. Regards, Dean
