Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2015-06-25 10:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I think that we should change the returned double to be (0.0,1.0]
> Agreed.
I find this to be a pretty bad idea. That definition is simply weird;
where else in the world will you find a random number generator that does
that? What are the odds that any callers are actually designed for that
behavior?
Another problem is that we consider anl_random_fract() to be an exported
API, and the very longstanding definition of that is that the result is
in (0,1), excluding both endpoints. Whatever we do with
sampler_random_fract(), we'd better make sure that anl_random_fract()
preserves that behavior, else we are likely to break third-party modules.
A simple fix would be to adjust sampler_random_fract to disallow 0
as result, say by repeating the pg_erand48 call if it produces 0.
I'm not sure if that would throw off any of the math in the new
tablesample-related callers. If it would, I'm inclined to fix the
problem call-site-by-call-site, rather than inventing a definition
of sampler_random_fract() that fails to satisfy the POLA.
regards, tom lane
