| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3 |
| Date: | 2008-01-20 17:59:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20080120175956.GA22740@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> I also realize that SHA1 is not a great solution these days either,
> but I'd at least like to see a discussion on moving Postgres to
> somewhere between "only has md5()" and "all pg_crypto functions inside
> core", even if it only means a handful of SHA functions. Moving this
> over to -hackers.
>
> In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch?
Isn't sha1 considered broken for some uses anyway? Perhaps if you're
going to do that it would make sense to move the whole pgcrypto/sha2.c
stuff to core, I think.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-01-20 18:04:17 | Re: Sun acquires MySQL |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-01-20 17:54:01 | Re: Sun acquires MySQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-01-20 18:06:49 | Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-01-20 17:56:30 | Friendly help for psql |