Re: initial random incompatibility

I cannot find traces, but I believe there was a Twitter poll on which
random do people get after setseed() in postgres, and we found at least
three distinct sequences across different builds.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

--
Darafei Praliaskouski
Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa