From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
Date: | 2011-08-10 19:04:13 |
Message-ID: | CABUevExNb8zGU73DfGqQYxay0N=4TeBfMDJrKPXDHLnN5upJvQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:02, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2011 21:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> On ons, 2011-08-10 at 14:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's come up before:
>>>> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01293.php>
>>>
>>> I was about to wonder out loud if we might be trying to hit a moving
>>> target....
>>
>> I think we are dealing with a lot more moving targets than adding a new
>> version of SHA every 12 to 15 years.
>
> Moving to a something more modern for internal use is one thing. But
> regarding the user-visible md5() function, how about we jump off this
> treadmill and remove it altogether? And provide a backwards-compatible
> function in pgcrypto.
-1.
There are certainly a number of perfectly valid use-cases for md5, and
it would probably break a *lot* of applications to remove it.
+1 for adding the SHA functions to core as choices, of course.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-10 19:28:41 | Re: Possible Bug in pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-08-10 19:02:01 | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |