| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: initial random incompatibility |
| Date: | 2019-06-17 17:35:46 |
| Message-ID: | 10667.1560792946@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jun-17, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>> 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.
> In different machines or different build options? I suppose that's
> acceptable ... the problem is changing the sequence in one release to
> the next in the same machine with the same build options.
FWIW, I agree that this change should be called out as a possible
compatibility hazard, even though anybody who was expecting repeatable
behavior from the old code was playing with fire.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-17 17:38:54 | Re: assertion at postmaster start |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-17 17:33:24 | Re: Fix up grouping sets reorder |