|From:||Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] random_normal function|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> On Dec 9, 2022, at 9:17 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> Final tme, with fixes from cirrusci.
>> Well, why not. Seems like you would use that a lot with PostGIS.
>> #include <math.h> /* for ldexp() */
>> +#include <float.h> /* for DBL_EPSILON */
>> And be careful with the order here.
> Should be ... alphabetical?
>> +static void
>> We always use (void) rather than empty parenthesis sets.
>> I would not leave that unchecked, so I think that you should add
>> something in ramdom.sql. Or would you prefer switching some of
>> the regression tests be switched so as they use the new normal
> Reading through those tests... seems like they will (rarely) fail. Is that... OK?
> The tests seem to be mostly worried that random() starts returning constants, which seems like a good thing to test for (is the random number generating returning randomness).
> An obvious test for this function is that the mean and stddev converge on the supplied parameters, given enough inputs, which is actually kind of the opposite test. I use the same random number generator as the uniform distribution, so that aspect is already covered by the existing tests.
>> (Ahem. Bonus points for a random_string() returning a bytea, based on
> Would love to. Separate patch of bundled into this one?
Here's the original with suggestions applied and a random_string that applies on top of it.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2022-12-09 23:21:51||Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count|
|Previous Message||Corey Huinker||2022-12-09 22:54:24||Re: Error-safe user functions|