Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3
Date: 2008-01-20 18:12:55
Message-ID: 47938F27.7000603@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> I also realize that SHA1 is not a great solution these days either,
>> but I'd at least like to see a discussion on moving Postgres to
>> somewhere between "only has md5()" and "all pg_crypto functions inside
>> core", even if it only means a handful of SHA functions. Moving this
>> over to -hackers.
>>
>> In summary: what would objections be to my writing a sha1() patch?
>
> Isn't sha1 considered broken for some uses anyway? Perhaps if you're
> going to do that it would make sense to move the whole pgcrypto/sha2.c
> stuff to core, I think.

IIRC not anymore than md5, which we already do...

That said, it would make sense to include sha1() for compatibility
reasons and a stronger sha for people that need something better.

//Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-20 18:13:37 Re: ATTN: Clodaldo was Performance problem. Could it be related to 8.3-beta4?
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2008-01-20 18:08:37 Re: Sun acquires MySQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-20 18:22:48 Re: message string fixes
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2008-01-20 18:06:49 Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3