On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:31, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's probably a fair point. However, all the existing pgbench
> random functions are using it, so I think it's fair enough for
> permute() to do the same (and actually 2^48 is pretty huge). Switching
> to a 64-bit PRNG might not be a bad idea, but I think that's something
> we'd want to do across the board, and so I think it should be out of
> scope for this patch.
>
Of course the immediate counter-argument to changing the existing
random functions would be that doing so would break lots of people's
tests, and no one would thank us for that. Still, I think that, since
the existing random functions use a 48-bit PRNG, it's not unreasonable
for permute() to do the same.
Regards,
Dean
