On Aug 12, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Marko Kreen wrote: > My point was that giving such open-ended list of algorithms > was bad idea, but there is no problem keeping old behaviour. > >> I don't see anything much wrong with sha1(bytea/text) -> bytea. >> There's no law that says it has to work exactly like md5() does. > > The problem is that list of must-have algorithms is getting > quite long: md5, sha1, sha224, sha256, sha384, sha512, > + at least 4 from upcoming sha3.
+1 I think some sort of digest() function that takes a parameter naming the algorithm would be the way to go. That's not to say that the existing named functions could continue to exist -- md5() in core and sha1() in pg_crypto. But it sure seems to me like we ought to have just one function for digests (or 2, if we also have hexdigest()). Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
