| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, david(at)fetter(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MD5 aggregate |
| Date: | 2013-06-27 08:28:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCUJKKw6jRz1iCOo3vOjs-y82G1Ew9amXTp4C-A-+bcjKA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 June 2013 21:46, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 6/26/13 4:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> A quick google search reveals several people asking for something like
>> this, and people recommending md5(string_agg(...)) or
>> md5(string_agg(md5(...))) based solutions, which are doomed to failure
>> on larger tables.
>
> The thread discussed several other options of checksumming tables that
> did not have the air of a crytographic offering, as Noah put it.
>
True but md5 has the advantage of being directly comparable with the
output of Unix md5sum, which would be useful if you loaded data from
external files and wanted to confirm that your import process didn't
mangle it.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2013-06-27 08:35:43 | Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?) |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-06-27 08:19:41 | Re: MD5 aggregate |