Re: initial random incompatibility

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: initial random incompatibility
Date: 2019-06-10 14:51:54
Message-ID: 20190610145154.GA2249@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Jun-08, Euler Taveira wrote:

> While fixing the breakage caused by the default number of trailing
> digits output for real and double precision, I noticed that first
> random() call after setseed(0) doesn't return the same value as 10 and
> earlier (I tested 9.4 and later). It changed an expected behavior and
> it should be listed in incompatibilities section of the release notes.
> Some applications can rely on such behavior.

Hmm. Tom argued about the backwards-compatibility argument in
the discussion that led to that commit:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3859.1545849900@sss.pgh.pa.us
I think this is worth listing in the release notes. Can you propose
some wording?

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ibrar Ahmed 2019-06-10 14:55:33 Re: pgbench - extend initialization phase control
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-06-10 14:40:34 Re: Fix testing on msys when builddir is under /c mount point