| From: | Marco Colombo <pgsql(at)esiway(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Random not so random |
| Date: | 2004-10-06 17:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.61.0410061837370.32475@Megathlon.ESI |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> now.tv_sec, and it's perfectly portable. No one in their right mind
> expects random(3) to be cryptographically secure anyway, so doing more
> doesn't seem warranted.
Tom, having a source of "real" random data isn't useful just for crypto
applications. No PRNG is perfect, when it comes to statistics.
> The various proposals to create a more-secure, less-portable variant
> of random() don't seem appropriate to me for beta. But I'd not object
> to someone whipping up a contrib module for 8.1 or beyond.
Agreed.
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo(at)ESI(dot)it
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-10-06 17:07:43 | Re: database constraints |
| Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-10-06 16:47:02 | Re: RE : Postgres 8.0 + JDBC |