On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:07:01PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > There isn't enough agreement to move some things from pgcrypto to > > the core so this thread is being removed from the patch queue. > > I don't agree that we should just close discussion. Nobody seems > happy with the status quo, which is that we provide md5 but not > sha1, and are thus encouraging people to use md5 everywhere. At the > very least, I think we need to add sha1. Adding sha* would be > better, and adding other hashes would be better still (and make PG a > better product, in my opinion: having things builtin vs. contrib is > a huge distinction). > > I'd also like to emphasize that this is not a pgcrypto issue: while > it provides the same functionality that this proposal does, so does > creating a Pl/Perl function, which is the route I usually go, as it > is much easier and portable. So I see this as adding missing > features to core. We will obviously never replace pgcrypto entirely, > due to the silly state of encryption legislation.
Just exactly which encryption legislation are we talking about here? I know there was some fuss about this issue back in the early 1990s, but that was many, many law changes and court cases ago, world-wide. It's far from clear to me that there's any reason other than inertia not to roll the crypto stuff into the core functionality and have done. 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
