Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 5 Mar 2023, at 00:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I've gone through this and have a modest suggestion: let's invent some
>> wrapper functions around encode(sha256()) to reduce the cosmetic diffs
>> and consequent need for closer study of patch changes. In the attached
>> I called them "notmd5()", but I'm surely not wedded to that name.
> For readers without all context, wouldn't it be better to encode in the
> function name why we're not just calling a hash like md5? Something like
> fips_allowed_hash() or similar?
I'd prefer shorter than that --- all these queries are laid out on the
expectation of a very short function name. Maybe "fipshash()"?
We could make the comment introducing the function declarations more
elaborate, too.
regards, tom lane
