From: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)olemiss(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie(at)sable(dot)ox(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] random() function produces wrong range |
Date: | 2000-08-03 03:23:07 |
Message-ID: | 4.3.2.7.2.20000802222151.02ca3a90@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> >> 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."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guy Fraser | 2000-08-03 03:44:49 | Re: VS: Backup/dump of huge tables and performance |
Previous Message | Christopher Smith | 2000-08-02 23:26:01 | Re: Slash on PostgreSQL mailing list |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-08-03 04:40:23 | Raw constraint & pg_relcheck.rcsrc |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-08-03 01:36:38 | Re: comparing rows |