| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-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. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-02 23:04:09 | Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2008-04-02 21:17:59 | Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-02 23:04:09 | Re: [GENERAL] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-04-02 22:53:10 | Re: TRUNCATE TABLE with IDENTITY |