On 6/26/13 4:04 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> A quick google search reveals several people asking for something like
> this, and people recommending md5(string_agg(...)) or
> md5(string_agg(md5(...))) based solutions, which are doomed to failure
> on larger tables.
The thread discussed several other options of checksumming tables that
did not have the air of a crytographic offering, as Noah put it.
> So I think that there is a case for having md5_agg()
> in core as an alternative to such hacks, while having more
> sophisticated crypto functions available as extensions.
Well, in general, I'd rather see the sophisticated stuff in core and the
hacks in extensions.
