From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Increase the number of possible random seeds per time period. |
Date: | 2018-11-15 03:59:15 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=1hj-r1Bk_x_jkNnssYeZ+FQi2D_2xjJ-oYwjqtL38Wtw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <tmunro(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > Increase the number of possible random seeds per time period.
>
> Um, this bit is *not* right:
>
> + ((unsigned int) MyStartTimestamp >> 20));
>
> You're cutting it down to 32 bits and then right shifting, which
> means you are shifting in a lot of zeroes when you could be shifting
> in something that's not quite as predetermined. I had in mind to do
> the shifts in uint64 arithmetic and then narrow the final XOR result
> to int (maybe let the compiler do that implicitly).
Will this close the case?
- srandom(((unsigned int) MyProcPid) ^
- ((unsigned int) MyStartTimestamp << 12) ^
- ((unsigned int) MyStartTimestamp >> 20));
+ srandom(((uint64) MyProcPid) ^
+ ((uint64) MyStartTimestamp << 12) ^
+ ((uint64) MyStartTimestamp >> 20));
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-15 04:21:27 | Re: pgsql: Increase the number of possible random seeds per time period. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-15 03:38:35 | Re: pgsql: Increase the number of possible random seeds per time period. |