| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: pgbench randomness initialization |
| Date: | 2018-03-16 03:20:56 |
| Message-ID: | 5AAB3818.2070500@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'm sorry, I must have missed your reply on the 5th somehow.
On 03/05/18 07:01, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I must admit that I'm not too happy with the result as well, so I dropped
> the octal/hexadecimal parsing.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me; perfectly adequate to accept only
one base.
But now the documentation is back to its original state of silence on
what base or how many bases might be allowed. Could it just say
"or an unsigned decimal integer value"? Then no one will wonder.
> The "idem" is about setting the variable but not overwritting it if it
> already exists. The intention is that :random_seed is the random seed,
> unless the user set it to something else in which case it is the user's
> value. I've improved the variable description in the doc to point out that
> the value may be overwritten with -D.
Ok.
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-03-16 03:51:04 | Re: fixing more format truncation issues |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-03-16 02:54:15 | Re: handling of heap rewrites in logical decoding |