Re: Channel binding for post-quantum cryptography - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nico Williams
Subject Re: Channel binding for post-quantum cryptography
Date
Msg-id aQOFB15kFrIoPGVn@ubby
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Channel binding for post-quantum cryptography  (Filip Janus <fjanus@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 11:39:38AM +0100, Filip Janus wrote:
> Thank you for posting it there. If I understand correctly, the resolution
> should be to use internal hash algorithms — in this case, SHAKE.

In this case, yes, it seem the consensus (though it's early to call it)
is SHAKE256.

> Now, the question is whether to wait for the implementation of a public API
> to make the change as general as possible, or to try implementing it on the
> PG side?

If you can wait, wait.  Otherwise if the consensus changes then you'll
be stuck with flag day eventually.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join