From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Something fishy happening on frogmouth
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmoa477p+T6n5Sh_qRSvzj8TPYoJgve0tmAGt5cpLta8FSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6557.1383073940@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob859sdnDuHAF31BE55qEoREnCzzWeqDbgkNB0d_F+zmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131030124734.GA11429@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CA+Tgmoa477p+T6n5Sh_qRSvzj8TPYoJgve0tmAGt5cpLta8FSA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:07:43 -0400"
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:51:53 -0400
Message-ID: <5011.1383151913@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah, I think that's probably what it is.  There's PostmasterRandom()
> to initialize the random-number generator on first use, but that
> doesn't help if some other module calls random().  I wonder if we
> ought to just get rid of PostmasterRandom() and instead have the
> postmaster run that initialization code very early in startup.

You could do arbitrary rearrangement of the postmaster's code and not
succeed in affecting this behavior in the slightest, because the
postmaster isn't running during bootstrap.  I continue to doubt that
there's a good reason to be creating DSM segment(s) here.

			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