On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 18:44:13 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> We already have MD5 encryption in the server. Why would someone want
> >> CRC32?
>
> > Lower CPU utiliization.
>
> Like Bruce, I don't real
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> We already have MD5 encryption in the server. Why would someone want
>> CRC32?
> Lower CPU utiliization.
Like Bruce, I don't really think there is demand for such a function.
But if we were going to offer it, it at least ou
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 16:14:04 -0400,
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ilia Kantor wrote:
> > > Both backend and users may have a nice use of the function.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nice and fast hashing when one doesn't need encryption.
> >
> > We already have MD5 encryp
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 16:14:04 -0400,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ilia Kantor wrote:
> > Both backend and users may have a nice use of the function.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nice and fast hashing when one doesn't need encryption.
>
> We already have MD5 encryption in the server. Why would someone want
Ilia Kantor wrote:
> Both backend and users may have a nice use of the function.
>
>
>
> Nice and fast hashing when one doesn't need encryption.
We already have MD5 encryption in the server. Why would someone want
CRC32?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
Both backend and users may have a nice use of the
function.
Nice and fast hashing when one doesn’t need encryption.
crc32.c
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
