Re: rand48 replacement

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: rand48 replacement
Date: 2021-09-25 07:40:50
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2109250938560.3216312@pseudo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Aleksander,

>> Attached a v10 which is some kind of compromise where the interface uses
>> inclusive min and max bounds, so that all values can be reached.
> Just wanted to let you know that cfbot [1] doesn't seem to be happy with
> the patch. Apparently, some tests are falling. To be honest, I didn't
> invest too much time into investigating this. Hopefully, it's not a big
> deal.
> [1]:

Indeed. I wish that these results would be available from the cf

Attached a v11 which might improve things.

Thanks for the ping!


Attachment Content-Type Size
prng-11.patch text/x-diff 55.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2021-09-25 07:45:08 Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-09-25 07:23:11 Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side