"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The seed alone wouldn't be enough to duplicate the behavior, since
>> the behavior of random() typically varies across platforms. So we
>> might get a report and still be unable to reproduce it.
> At least the person getting the initial failure would be able to
> recreate it, and possibly provide a stack trace.
On second thought, since there's no need for a particularly high-quality
RNG here, we could just embed some brain-dead one-liner implementation,
which should behave the same everywhere.
regards, tom lane