> >> none of the man pages I've looked at so far mention it). But all the
> >> machines say that the output of random() is 31 bits, so INT_MAX should
> >> work.
> > SuSv2 says explicitly 2^31-1 so you should use that, otherwise you'll
> > be non-portable to platforms with 64-bit ints, for example.
>Maybe. You don't think that a 64-bit-int platform would choose to
>supply a random() function with a range of 2^63-1? The HPUX and SunOS
>man pages clearly specify that random()'s result is "long", so I think
>a case could also be made for LONG_MAX.
>I suspect we have a good chance at getting burned no matter what we use
>:-(. But RAND_MAX is definitely the wrong thing.
Is it possible to test (during configure phase) and then go from there...
or does it need to be the same for all platforms?
- Thomas Swan
- Graduate Student - Computer Science
- The University of Mississippi
- "People can be categorized into two fundamental
- groups, those that divide people into two groups
- and those that don't."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2000-08-03 04:40:23|
|Subject: Raw constraint & pg_relcheck.rcsrc|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-08-03 01:36:38|
|Subject: Re: comparing rows |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Guy Fraser||Date: 2000-08-03 03:44:49|
|Subject: Re: VS: Backup/dump of huge tables and performance|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Smith||Date: 2000-08-02 23:26:01|
|Subject: Re: Slash on PostgreSQL mailing list|