On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Added to the next CF.
Committed. I also modified the reference in the regression test along
similar lines, and for good measure, I back-patched this change, as it
constitutes a clear error in the documentation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:33:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> I noticed that the documentation for encrypt()/decrypt() says "aes —
>>> AES (Rijndael-128)", but in fact 192 and 25
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:33:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I noticed that the documentation for encrypt()/decrypt() says "aes —
>> AES (Rijndael-128)", but in fact 192 and 256 bit keys are also
>> supported, whether you build --with-o
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:33:41PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I noticed that the documentation for encrypt()/decrypt() says "aes —
> AES (Rijndael-128)", but in fact 192 and 256 bit keys are also
> supported, whether you build --with-openssl or --without-openssl.
> Should that say "AES (Rijndael-
Hi,
I noticed that the documentation for encrypt()/decrypt() says "aes —
AES (Rijndael-128)", but in fact 192 and 256 bit keys are also
supported, whether you build --with-openssl or --without-openssl.
Should that say "AES (Rijndael-128, -192 or -256)" instead?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterpr
