Re: [HACKERS] Renaming more clearly SHA functions in pgcrypto/
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hi all, >> (folks interested in that in CC) >> >> While looking at some facility in pgcrypto, I have noticed the stanza >> created by 56f4478 to prevent conflicts with OpenSSL, like that: >> +#define SHA256_Init pg_SHA256_Init >> +#define SHA256_Update pg_SHA256_Update >> >> Wouldn't it be better to avoid that, and just rename all those >> functions as pg_shaXX_foo? > > Sure. OK, so I guess I'll get something into a shape like that. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Renaming more clearly SHA functions in pgcrypto/
Michael Paquier wrote: > Hi all, > (folks interested in that in CC) > > While looking at some facility in pgcrypto, I have noticed the stanza > created by 56f4478 to prevent conflicts with OpenSSL, like that: > +#define SHA256_Init pg_SHA256_Init > +#define SHA256_Update pg_SHA256_Update > > Wouldn't it be better to avoid that, and just rename all those > functions as pg_shaXX_foo? Sure. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Renaming more clearly SHA functions in pgcrypto/
Hi all, (folks interested in that in CC) While looking at some facility in pgcrypto, I have noticed the stanza created by 56f4478 to prevent conflicts with OpenSSL, like that: +#define SHA256_Init pg_SHA256_Init +#define SHA256_Update pg_SHA256_Update Wouldn't it be better to avoid that, and just rename all those functions as pg_shaXX_foo? It seems to me that this would be more in-line with what's already in core. This renaming would be part of the refactoring effort for SCRAM to have all the functions for SHA1, SHA156, etc in a unique file sha.c in src/common with a reworked interface, particularly for SHA1 where things are quite inconsistent with SHA2XX. Opinions? As that's a matter really rather independent on SCRAM, I prefer creating a new thread to gather opinions.. Thanks, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
