On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 18:58:41 +0200, Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, that should be done each time the random() function > is evaluated. (I have no familiarity with the code, so please
That may be overkill, since I don't think that random has been advertised as a secure or even particularly strong random number generator. > bear with me if the suggestion is unsound). I'd even add a parameter > for "really" random data to be provided, by reading /dev/random > instead of /dev/urandom (but read(2) may block). You don't want to use /dev/random. You aren't going to get better random numbers that way and blocking reads is a big problem. > How about the following: > random() = random(0) = traditional random() > random(1) = best effort random() via /dev/urandom > random(2) = wait for really random bits via /dev/random It might be nice to have a secure random function available in postgres. Just using /dev/urandom is probably good enough to provide this service. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
