Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I also realize that SHA1 is not a great solution these days either, > but I'd at least like to see a discussion on moving Postgres to > somewhere between "only has md5()" and "all pg_crypto functions inside > core", even if it only means a handful of SHA functions. Moving this > over to -hackers. > > In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch?
Isn't sha1 considered broken for some uses anyway? Perhaps if you're going to do that it would make sense to move the whole pgcrypto/sha2.c stuff to core, I think. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
