Re: contrib/pgcrypto functions not IMMUTABLE?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib/pgcrypto functions not IMMUTABLE?
Date: 2005-07-03 16:02:38
Message-ID: 4646.1120406558@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee> writes:
> And if you decide to do it, please make them all STRICT too,
> _except_ encrypt/decrypt functions. Thats an additional change
> I have in the air for pgcrypto.sql.in.

> As for the encrypt/decrypt functions, I am increasingly
> favouring throwing error in case of NULL arguments.

That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. Why shouldn't an encryptable
value be NULL? I think you should just make 'em strict.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-03 16:10:28 Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-07-03 15:49:32 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC