| From: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core? |
| Date: | 2011-09-02 19:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20110902190545.GW19360@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:54:07PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-08-31 at 13:12 -0500, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> > Hmm, this thread seems to have petered out without a conclusion. Just
> > wanted to comment that there _are_ non-password storage uses for these
> > digests: I use them in a context of storing large files in a bytea
> > column, as a means to doing data deduplication, and avoiding pushing
> > files from clients to server and back.
>
> But I suppose you don't need the hash function in the database system
> for that.
>
It is very useful to have the same hash function used internally by
PostgreSQL exposed externally. I know you can get the code and add an
equivalent one of your own...
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2011-09-02 19:09:52 | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-02 19:04:28 | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |