On 06.03.23 17:06, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2023, at 15:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>
>>> 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.
>
> fipshash() with an explanatory comments sounds like a good idea.
committed like that
(I'm going to close the CF item and revisit the other test suites for
the next release.)
