From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ilia Kantor <ilia(at)obnovlenie(dot)ru>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CRC32 function |
Date: | 2005-08-25 22:52:59 |
Message-ID: | 20050825225259.GB2081@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 18:44:13 -0400,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> We already have MD5 encryption in the server. Why would someone want
> >> CRC32?
>
> > Lower CPU utiliization.
>
> Like Bruce, I don't really think there is demand for such a function.
> But if we were going to offer it, it at least ought to use the existing
> implementation in pg_crc.c, instead of duplicating code yet again.
Maybe I should have elaborated. I was just responding directly to Bruce's
question. I doubt the CPU usage is a big deal in typical use and that
that the already available cryptographic hashes have advantages such that
I don't expect many people to use CRC32.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-08-25 23:03:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-25 22:44:13 | Re: CRC32 function |