Re: Issue with the PRNG used by Postgres

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2024-04-10 16:05:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. So what's the conclusion? Leave it alone? Commit to
>> HEAD only?

> I think we should certainly fix it. I don't really have an opinion about
> backpatching, it's just on the line between the two for me.
> Hm. The next set of releases is still a bit away, and this is one of the
> period where HEAD is hopefully going to be more tested than usual, so I'd
> perhaps very softly lean towards backpatching. There'd have to be some very
> odd compiler behaviour to make it slower than before anyway.

I'm not worried about it being slower, but about whether it could
report "stuck spinlock" in cases where the existing code succeeds.
While that seems at least theoretically possible, it seems like
if you hit it you have got problems that need to be fixed anyway.
Nonetheless, I'm kind of leaning to not back-patching. I do agree
on getting it into HEAD sooner not later though.

regards, tom lane