Re: CRC32 function - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruno Wolff III
Subject Re: CRC32 function
Date
Msg-id 20050825225259.GB2081@wolff.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CRC32 function  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 18:44:13 -0400,
  Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> >   Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> >> We already have MD5 encryption in the server.  Why would someone want
> >> CRC32?
>
> > Lower CPU utiliization.
>
> Like Bruce, I don't really think there is demand for such a function.
> But if we were going to offer it, it at least ought to use the existing
> implementation in pg_crc.c, instead of duplicating code yet again.

Maybe I should have elaborated. I was just responding directly to Bruce's
question. I doubt the CPU usage is a big deal in typical use and that
that the already available cryptographic hashes have advantages such that
I don't expect many people to use CRC32.

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CRC32 function
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support