| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? | 
| Date: | 2011-08-11 07:06:36 | 
| Message-ID: | 1313046396.5229.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On ons, 2011-08-10 at 14:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > One thing that might be reasonable would be to move the digest()
> > functions
> >     digest(data text, type text) returns bytea
> >     digest(data bytea, type text) returns bytea
> > from pgcrypto into core,
> 
> ... which this approach would create, because digest() isn't
> restricted
> to just those algorithms.  I think it'd be better to just invent two
> new functions, which also avoids issues for applications that
> currently
> expect the digest functions to be installed in pgcrypto's schema.
I would also prefer to simply add sha1(bytea/text) => bytea, but the
existing md5 function is md5(bytea/text) => test, so either the new
functions would be inconsistent, or we make the new functions broken
like the old one, or we invent a different naming system, such as
digest().
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-11 07:16:42 | Re: XMLATTRIBUTES vs. values of type XML | 
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-11 07:02:29 | Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade |