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. > So I think that there is a case for having md5_agg() > in core as an alternative to such hacks, while having more > sophisticated crypto functions available as extensions. Well, in general, I'd rather see the sophisticated stuff in core and the hacks in extensions. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
