>> Just FTR, I strongly object to your removal of process-startup srandom()
>> calls.
>
> Ok. The point of the patch is to replace and unify the postgres underlying
> PRNG, so there was some logic behind this removal.
FTR, this was triggered by your comment on Jul 1:
>> [...] I see that you probably did that because random.c and srandom.c
>> depend on it, but I wonder why we don't make an effort to flush those
>> altogether. It's surely pretty confusing to newbies that what appears
>> to be a call of the libc primitives is no such thing.
I understood "flushing s?random.c" as that it would be a good thing to
remove their definitions, hence their calls, whereas in the initial patch
I provided a replacement for srandom & random.
--
Fabien.