On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:39:55AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 05:04:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> fallback implementation. Finally, pgcrypto is not touched, but we > > > > > > I have a fallback implemention --- it fails? ;-) Did you want me to > > > include an AES implementation? > > > > No idea about this one yet. There are no direct users of AES except > > pgcrypto in core. One thing that would be good IMO is to properly > > split the patch of this thread into individual parts that could be > > reviewed separately using for example "git format-patch" to generate > > patch series. What's presented is a mixed bag, so that's harder to > > look at it and consider how this stuff should work, and if there are > > pieces that should be designed better or not. > > I don't think there's any need for us to implement a fallback > implementation of AES. I'm not entirely sure we need it for hashes > but since we've already got it...
Agreed. I think there is serious risk we would do AES in a different way than OpenSSL, especially if I did it. ;-) We can add a native AES one day if we want, but as stated by Michael Paquier, it has to be tested so we are sure it returns exactly the same values as OpenSSL. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
