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
