Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] setseed() doc

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] setseed() doc
Date: 2006-09-20 15:47:39
Message-ID: 3830.1158767259@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT it's just junk.  It happens to be the input times
>> MAX_RANDOM_VALUE, but what use is that?  I wonder if we shouldn't
>> change the function to return VOID

> I agree. Given how soon we want to get an 8.2 beta out the door, perhaps
> this change would be best postponed to 8.3 (unless there's another
> outstanding 8.2 patch that requires initdb?).

Nothing outstanding at the moment.

Although this is surely a small change, it's also pretty low-priority,
so I'd counsel leaving it for 8.3 rather than trying to cram it in now.
We have more important things to be worrying about ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jie ZhangDate: 2006-09-20 16:03:20
Subject: Re: Bitmap index status
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-09-20 15:46:24
Subject: Release Notes: Major Changes in 8.2

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Mark Cave-AylandDate: 2006-09-20 19:43:38
Subject: WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2006-09-20 15:10:15
Subject: Re: setseed() doc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group