Re: Broken link in pgcrypto documentation

> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading" section
>>> altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a stale
>>> 10+ year old list of links is unlikely to provide more insights than what more
>>> curated sites can do.
>
>> +1. I don't think it's the job of a postgres contrib module to maintain that.
>
> +1. We haven't maintained that list in the past and it seems unlikely
> that we'll get better at it.
>
> 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.

Specifically, I propose the attached.

--
Daniel Gustafsson