On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 03:59:51PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 12:43:32AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > > > > Yeah, I see that gen_salt() needs to be volatile, but I was thinking > > about functions like digest(), encrypt(), decrypt(), etc., that > > would be expected to return the same output given the same input. > > For example, the core md5() function is immutable, but pgcrypto's > > digest() is volatile. I was wondering if that's intentional or > > just an oversight. > > Just an oversight. > > Could you send a patch to -patches that fixes it? It would take > some time to do it myself, as I am coding an additional feature > to the PGP functions, and all my free time goes to that. > > And if you decide to do it, please make them all STRICT too, > _except_ encrypt/decrypt functions. Thats an additional change > I have in the air for pgcrypto.sql.in.
I'll submit a patch. Does the following look right? digest IMMUTABLE STRICT digest_exists IMMUTABLE STRICT hmac IMMUTABLE STRICT hmac_exists IMMUTABLE STRICT crypt IMMUTABLE STRICT gen_salt VOLATILE STRICT encrypt IMMUTABLE decrypt IMMUTABLE encrypt_iv IMMUTABLE decrypt_iv IMMUTABLE cipher_exists IMMUTABLE STRICT In the functions marked STRICT, should I leave the PG_ARGISNULL() checks in place as a precaution? Removing those checks could cause problems if people use the new code but have old (non-STRICT) catalog entries. -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/ ---------------------------(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
