Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CRC32 function

From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Ilia Kantor <ilia(at)obnovlenie(dot)ru>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CRC32 function
Date: 2005-08-25 22:52:59
Message-ID: 20050825225259.GB2081@wolff.to (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 18:44:13 -0400,
  Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> >   Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> We already have MD5 encryption in the server.  Why would someone want
> >> CRC32?
> 
> > Lower CPU utiliization.
> 
> Like Bruce, I don't really think there is demand for such a function.
> But if we were going to offer it, it at least ought to use the existing
> implementation in pg_crc.c, instead of duplicating code yet again.

Maybe I should have elaborated. I was just responding directly to Bruce's
question. I doubt the CPU usage is a big deal in typical use and that
that the already available cryptographic hashes have advantages such that
I don't expect many people to use CRC32.

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-08-25 23:03:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-08-25 22:44:13
Subject: Re: CRC32 function

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group