"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:57:58 +0300
> "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is bad idea, postgres already does srandom()
> Is that new? I added that to my local version at one time because I
> was getting the same salt every time I ran it.
Quite a while ago we went around and removed random calls to srandom.
In any case it is *not* acceptable to put one into a datatype, because
the effects are global. If we did have a problem like that, the
appropriate solution would be elsewhere.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
