Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > 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. Only to people who don't understand whether crypto strength is actually important in a given use-case. However ... IIRC, hash_any gives different results on bigendian and littleendian machines. I'm not sure if a predictable cross-platform result is important for this use? If you're hashing data containing native integers, this is a problem anyway. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers