Re: Broken link in pgcrypto documentation

> On 13 Feb 2024, at 21:24, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
>>>> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe
>>>> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the
>>>> stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links.
>>
>>> Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been
>>> replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. I
>>> think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on
>>> security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader.
>>
>> Good point. Nuking both lists works for me.
>
> +1.

Alright, sounds good. I'll go ahead with that in the morning then, backpatched
all the way down since the links are equally outdated everywhere.

--
Daniel Gustafsson