10.08.2020 18:30, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes пишет:
On 10/08/2020 12:17, Vlad Khorsun wrote:
10.08.2020 17:49, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
On 2020-08-10 13:31, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
10.08.2020 12:23, Alex Peshkoff via Firebird-devel wrote:
CRC32 returns 32-bit integer.
HASH(something USING method) returns varbinary of appropriate length.
What should be return value of HASH(something USING CRC32)?
32 bits integer. It won't be the first function whose result
depends on parameter.
OK.
Same function returning different types depending on input argument
- very bad idea,
I think. If we have some in the past it doesn't means we should add
more mess "just
because we can".
I disagree. It's worse to have a hash function not part of HASH function.
What about string, date, etc functions ? Should it be collected under same
name with alg as parameter ? ;) To be serious - CRC32 and SHA256 have nothing
common in its typical usage.
Is it possible to pass hash method as parameter ? If not now - could
it be possible
in the feature ? If yes - what type of result HASH should return for
CRC32 in this case
(i.e. when method name is passed as parameter) ?
Hash method is fixed at compile time, so I don't see a problem.
I.e. it will never be possible to pass method name as parameter, correct ?
Currently, HASH supports MD5, SHA1, SHA256 and SHA512 - all these
algorithms are used
in cryptography, as Mark said in start message of this thread. Why mix
CRC32 in here ?
It is completely different alg for different purposes. What problem we
want to address
here ? BTW, any plans to add CRC64 ?
If CRC32 is a hash, and look like it is, then it's the place to go.
There are cryptographic hashes and all else - this is the point I offer to
consider.
Regards,
Vlad
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
