Re: initial random incompatibility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: initial random incompatibility
Date
Msg-id 10667.1560792946@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: initial random incompatibility  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> 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 machines or different build options?  I suppose that's
> acceptable ...  the problem is changing the sequence in one release to
> the next in the same machine with the same build options.

FWIW, I agree that this change should be called out as a possible
compatibility hazard, even though anybody who was expecting repeatable
behavior from the old code was playing with fire.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix up grouping sets reorder
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: assertion at postmaster start