On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 08:22:30PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 19:14 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > The changes shown below are incorrect, I think. > > > > > > > > > On 10/2/13 12:00 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > *************** gen_salt(type text [, iter_count integer > > > > *** 353,359 **** > > > > <entry>12 years</entry> > > > > </row> > > > > <row> > > > > ! <entry><literal>md5</></entry> > > > > <entry>2345086</entry> > > > > <entry>1 day</entry> > > > > <entry>3 years</entry> > > > > --- 358,364 ---- > > > > <entry>12 years</entry> > > > > </row> > > > > <row> > > > > ! <entry><literal>md5 hash</></entry> > > > > Uh, the table already has a mention of md5 crypt above: > > > > <entry><literal>crypt-md5</></entry> > > > > How can the later entry not be MD5 hash? > > Because what you pass to the functions is 'md5', not 'md5 hash', which > is what the new text appears to indicate.
So if we revert, will it still be clear what is MD5 and what is MD5 hash? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
