On 08/11/2011 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen<markokr@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> ... which this approach would create, because digest() isn't restricted
>>> to just those algorithms. I think it'd be better to just invent two
>>> new functions, which also avoids issues for applications that currently
>>> expect the digest functions to be installed in pgcrypto's schema.
>> I would suggest digest() with fixed list of algorithms: md5, sha1, sha2.
>> The uncommon/obsolete algorithms that can be used
>> from digest() if compiled with openssl, are not something we
>> need to worry over. In fact we have never "supported" them,
>> as no testing has been done.
> Hmm ... they may be untested by us, but I feel sure that if we remove
> that functionality from pgcrypto, *somebody* is gonna complain.
Yeah. Maybe we should add a test or two.
> I don't see anything much wrong with sha1(bytea/text) -> bytea.
> There's no law that says it has to work exactly like md5() does.
>
>
I agree. We could provide an md5_b(text/bytea) -> bytea if people are
really concerned about orthogonality.
cheers
andrew
