| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matemática A3K <matematica(dot)a3k(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Minor] Improvement on random functions doc |
| Date: | 2026-10-21 00:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFadN17zjn89No3D7pzfMCnyGCLWomKkSB+Co3R_v-GKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 3:54 AM Matemática A3K <matematica(dot)a3k(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In my terms, this would be something like "Accuracy was traded in
> order to better convey the idea to the audience". I find this to be
> valid although I don't share it nor I think the documentation is built
> upon it, but this is just my opinion, thanks for sharing yours.
pgbench docs already describes random() as producing a "uniformly-distributed
random integer". So I'm OK with explicitly stating that the distribution is
uniform here as well.
If we do that, I think it's better to use similar wording to keep the docs
consistent.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-10-21 02:06:12 | [Minor] Improvement on random functions doc |
| Previous Message | Matemática A3K | 2026-10-20 18:54:10 | Re: [Minor] Improvement on random functions doc |