From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
Date: | 2011-08-11 14:46:26 |
Message-ID: | 23927.1313073986@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... 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 suggest digest() with fixed list of algorithms: md5, sha1, sha2.
> The uncommon/obsolete algorithms that can be used
> from digest() if compiled with openssl, are not something we
> need to worry over. In fact we have never "supported" them,
> as no testing has been done.
Hmm ... they may be untested by us, but I feel sure that if we remove
that functionality from pgcrypto, *somebody* is gonna complain.
I don't see anything much wrong with sha1(bytea/text) -> bytea.
There's no law that says it has to work exactly like md5() does.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-11 14:48:32 | Re: psql: display of object comments |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-11 14:39:19 | Re: "pgstat wait timeout" warnings |