On 08/11/2011 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Kreen<mark...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
... which this approach would create, because digest() isn't restricted
to just those algorithms. I think it'd be better to just invent two
new functions, which also avoids issues for applications that currently
expect the digest functions to be installed in pgcrypto's schema.
I would suggest digest() with fixed list of algorithms: md5, sha1, sha2.
The uncommon/obsolete algorithms that can be used
from digest() if compiled with openssl, are not something we
need to worry over. In fact we have never "supported" them,
as no testing has been done.
Hmm ... they may be untested by us, but I feel sure that if we remove
that functionality from pgcrypto, *somebody* is gonna complain.
Yeah. Maybe we should add a test or two.
I don't see anything much wrong with sha1(bytea/text) -> bytea.
There's no law that says it has to work exactly like md5() does.
I agree. We could provide an md5_b(text/bytea) -> bytea if people are
really concerned about orthogonality.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
