On fre, 2011-02-18 at 16:57 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 2. is md5 the most appropriate digest for this? If you need a
> cryptographically secure hash, do we need something stronger? If not,
> why not just use hash_any?
MD5 is probably more appropriate than hash_any, because the latter is
optimized for speed and collision avoidance and doesn't have a
guaranteed external format. The only consideration against MD5 might be
that it would make us look quite lame. We should probably provide
builtin SHA1 and SHA2 functions for this and other reasons.
