On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 01:42:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch? > > Mainly that no one else is dissatisfied with the current split > between core and pgcrypto. > > The only reason md5() is in core is to support encryption of > passwords in pg_shadow. There are good reasons not to have any more > crypto capability in core than we absolutely have to; mainly to do > with benighted laws in some countries.
Is there any country with laws so benighted that they restrict secure hashing algorithms? Right now, there's a contest between SHA1 and MD5 as to which one gets broken first, and SHA1 appears to be in the lead. SHAn for n>1 could preempt the awfulness of losing this race. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
