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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group