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 Dunstan||Date: 2005-08-25 23:03:05|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposed patch to getaddrinfo.c to support|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-08-25 22:44:13|
|Subject: Re: CRC32 function |