FYI, Neil has corrected this in CVS HEAD.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times
> >
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times
>> MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't
>> change the function to return VOID
> I agree. Given how soon we want to g
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times
> MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't
> change the function to return VOID
I agree. Given how soon we want to get an 8.2 beta out the door, perhaps
this chang
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > setseed(dp)
> > int
> > - set seed for subsequent random()
> > calls
> > + set seed for subsequent random() calls
> > (value between -1.0 and 1.0)
>
> Looking at the code, it would appear that the
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about the return value? The doc didn't say anything about it.
AFAICT it's just junk. It happens to be the input times
MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that? I wonder if we shouldn't
change the function to return VOID ... that option wasn't ava
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> setseed(dp)
> int
> - set seed for subsequent random()
> calls
> + set seed for subsequent random() calls
> (value between -1.0 and 1.0)
Looking at the code, it would appear that the intended range is 0 to 1.
Tom Lane skrev:
setseed(dp)
int
- set seed for subsequent random() calls
+ set seed for subsequent random() calls (value
between -1.0 and 1.0)
Looking at the code, it would appear that the intended range is 0 to 1.
Ok.
What about the return value? The doc didn'
