This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients davin, njs, pitrou, sbt, yselivanov
Date 2017-03-16.21:00:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1489698037.99.0.972646319995.issue29828@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
The use case is quite clear here.  The specific need to re-seed the Numpy PRNG has already come up in two different projects I work on: Numba and Dask.  I wouldn't be surprised if other libraries have similar needs.

If you want a reproducible RNG sequence, you should actually use a specific, explicit seed (and possibly instantiate a dedicated random state instead of using the default one).  When not using an explicit seed, people expect different random numbers regardless of whether a function is executed in one or several processes.

Note that multiprocessing *already* re-seeds the stdlib PRNG after fork, so re-seeding the Numpy PRNG is consistent with current behaviour.

About it being rarely used: the aim is not use by application developers but by library authors; e.g. Numpy itself could register the re-seeding callback, which would free users from doing it themselves.  It doesn't have to be used a lot to be useful.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-03-16 21:00:38pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, njs, sbt, yselivanov, davin
2017-03-16 21:00:37pitrousetmessageid: <1489698037.99.0.972646319995.issue29828@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-03-16 21:00:37pitroulinkissue29828 messages
2017-03-16 21:00:37pitroucreate