On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 09:09 +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Montag, 4. Juni 2007 Jonathan Feally wrote:
> > `hash` varchar(64) NOT NULL,
>
> Wouldn't it be better to say
> `sha256` varchar(64) NOT NULL,
>
> That would explain the content, and if we'd have to switch the checksum
> once (who knows?), the new field could be named sha1024, recalculated,
> and then the old one deleted.
Bad idea, because it locks the table while the change is taking place.
We've had a few people get stuck in the situation where their database
needed to have a massive conversion, like latin1 <--> utf8, and they
have to schedule hours of down time in order to run the conversion. We
should avoid like the plague ever causing our users that much pain :-\
To solve the problem of changing hash types, I suggest simply
self-labeling the contents: "{sha1}hashvalue"
and then down the road: "{sha4096}longerhashvalue"
with some limited future-proofing by picking a reasonable length.
Aaron
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
