On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 06:57, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> Based on the reviews so far, I think this is ready for commit, so
> unless anyone objects, I will do so in a day or so.
>
Committed. Thanks for the reviews.
Regards,
Dean
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 17:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 at 17:10, Tomas Vondra
> >
> > I did a quick review and a little bit of testing on the patch today. I
> > think it's a good/useful idea, and I think the code is ready to go (the
> > code is certainly much cleaner than
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 at 17:10, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> Hi Dean,
>
> I did a quick review and a little bit of testing on the patch today. I
> think it's a good/useful idea, and I think the code is ready to go (the
> code is certainly much cleaner than anything I'd written ...).
>
Thanks for
Hi Dean,
I did a quick review and a little bit of testing on the patch today. I
think it's a good/useful idea, and I think the code is ready to go (the
code is certainly much cleaner than anything I'd written ...).
I do have one minor comments regarding the docs - it refers to "random
functions"
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 12:47, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure if I understand what this
> test tests particularly:
>
> ```
> -- There should be no triple duplicates in 1000 full-range 32-bit random()
> -- values. (Each of the C(1000, 3) choices of
Hi,
> Interestingly, the cfbot didn't pick up on the fact that it needed
> rebasing. Anyway, the copyright years in the new file's header comment
> needed updating, so here is a rebase doing that.
Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not sure if I understand what this
test tests particularly:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 20:44, David Zhang wrote:
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> I applied this patch manually to the master branch, resolving a conflict
> in `numeric.h`. It successfully passed both `make check` and `make
> check-world`.
>
Thanks for testing.
Interestingly, the cfbot didn't
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 at 07:34, jian he wrote:
>
> Your patch works.
> performance is the best amount for other options in [0].
> I don't have deep knowledge about which one is more random.
>
Thanks for testing.
> Currently we have to explicitly mention the lower and upper bound.
> but can we do
Thank you for the patch.
I applied this patch manually to the master branch, resolving a conflict
in `numeric.h`. It successfully passed both `make check` and `make
check-world`.
Best regards,
David
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:07 AM Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch that adds 3 SQL-callable functions to return
> random integer/numeric values chosen uniformly from a given range:
>
> random(min int, max int) returns int
> random(min bigint, max bigint) returns bigint
> random(min
Hi
čt 21. 12. 2023 v 18:06 odesílatel Dean Rasheed
napsal:
> Attached is a patch that adds 3 SQL-callable functions to return
> random integer/numeric values chosen uniformly from a given range:
>
> random(min int, max int) returns int
> random(min bigint, max bigint) returns bigint
>
Attached is a patch that adds 3 SQL-callable functions to return
random integer/numeric values chosen uniformly from a given range:
random(min int, max int) returns int
random(min bigint, max bigint) returns bigint
random(min numeric, max numeric) returns numeric
The return value is in the
12 matches
Mail list logo
