>> With our current PRNG infrastructure it doesn't cost much to have
>> a separate PRNG for every purpose. I don't object to having
>> array_shuffle() and array_sample() share one PRNG, but I don't
>> think it should go much further than that.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, Tom. I have a couple of questions. Should we
> introduce a new seed function for the new PRNG state, used by array_shuffle()
> and array_sample()? What would be a good name? Or should those functions use
> pg_global_prng_state? Is it safe to assume, that pg_global_prng_state is
> seeded?
I'd suggest to use the existing global state. The global state should be
seeded at the process start, AFAIKR.
--
Fabien.
