On fre, 2011-02-18 at 16:57 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 2. is md5 the most appropriate digest for this? If you need a > cryptographically secure hash, do we need something stronger? If not, > why not just use hash_any?
MD5 is probably more appropriate than hash_any, because the latter is optimized for speed and collision avoidance and doesn't have a guaranteed external format. The only consideration against MD5 might be that it would make us look quite lame. We should probably provide builtin SHA1 and SHA2 functions for this and other reasons. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers