On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Of course, the weak spot in this analysis is the assumption that there
> are actually 122 independent bits in the value. It's not difficult to
> imagine that systems with crummy random() implementations might only have
> something like 32 bits worth of real randomness.
Obviously you can't use random(). That's why I talked about
cryptographic PRNGs, crypto libraries do proper seeding and generate
reliably random numbers all the time.
Regards,
Marti
