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

Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3
Date: 2008-04-02 23:03:09
Message-ID: 200804022303.m32N39v21262@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Was that really the conclusion? My memory of this thread showed that
> most people who actually deal with hashes and cryptography *wanted* a
> SHA based hash in core (because our users ask for it!) and the only
> disagreement was in *what* should be included.

Sorry if it looked like I was jumping to conclusions on this.  I was
reporting the summary of the comments I had from the patch queue.  Based
on the subsequent discussion, it seems it was accurate none-the-less.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-02 23:04:09
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong
Previous:From: Decibel!Date: 2008-04-02 22:53:10
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE TABLE with IDENTITY

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-02 23:04:09
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-04-02 21:17:59
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

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