From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Make pgbench use erand48() rather than random(). |
Date: | 2011-08-03 22:36:56 |
Message-ID: | 24981.1312411016@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm. I find the pgbench part of this a bit questionable, specifically
>> your decision to remove the code around line 2590 that installed a
>> variable srandom() seed in child processes.
> Unless I'm asleep at the switch, the srandom() calls you're worrying
> about execute in the parent thread, which still makes its own call to
> srandom().
[ looks more closely... ] OK, you're right: the per-"thread" random
seeds are initialized in the parent process and then propagated to child
processes by fork(); we'll never call random() in the children so
there's no need to make their states diverge. Never mind.
I do however notice a vestigial reference to MAX_RANDOM_VALUE at line
1063, which we probably should get rid of. What I think we probably
need instead, and don't have, is a check that "max - min + 1" doesn't
overflow.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-03 23:08:32 | Re: pgsql: Make pgbench use erand48() rather than random(). |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-03 22:16:23 | Re: pgsql: Make pgbench use erand48() rather than random(). |