On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:14:58PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> ... which this approach would create, because digest() isn't restricted > >>> to just those algorithms. I think it'd be better to just invent two > >>> new functions, which also avoids issues for applications that currently > >>> expect the digest functions to be installed in pgcrypto's schema. > > > >> I would suggest digest() with fixed list of algorithms: md5, sha1, sha2. > > > >> The uncommon/obsolete algorithms that can be used > >> from digest() if compiled with openssl, are not something we > >> need to worry over. In fact we have never "supported" them, > >> as no testing has been done. > > > > Hmm ... they may be untested by us, but I feel sure that if we remove > > that functionality from pgcrypto, *somebody* is gonna complain. > > If you dont want to break digest() but do not want such behaviour in core, > we could go with hash(data, algo) that has fixed number of digests, > but also couple non-cryptographic hashes like crc32, lookup2/3. > This would also fix the problem of people using hashtext() in user code. Hmm, this thread seems to have petered out without a conclusion. Just wanted to comment that there _are_ non-password storage uses for these digests: I use them in a context of storing large files in a bytea column, as a means to doing data deduplication, and avoiding pushing files from clients to server and back.
Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reeds...@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers