On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 21:02, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 10.08.2011 21:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> On ons, 2011-08-10 at 14:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's come up before: >>>> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01293.php> >>> >>> I was about to wonder out loud if we might be trying to hit a moving >>> target.... >> >> I think we are dealing with a lot more moving targets than adding a new >> version of SHA every 12 to 15 years. > > Moving to a something more modern for internal use is one thing. But > regarding the user-visible md5() function, how about we jump off this > treadmill and remove it altogether? And provide a backwards-compatible > function in pgcrypto.
-1. There are certainly a number of perfectly valid use-cases for md5, and it would probably break a *lot* of applications to remove it. +1 for adding the SHA functions to core as choices, of course. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
