| From: | Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Filip Janus <fjanus(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Channel binding for post-quantum cryptography |
| Date: | 2025-10-30 15:32:23 |
| Message-ID: | aQOFB15kFrIoPGVn@ubby |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 11:39:38AM +0100, Filip Janus wrote:
> Thank you for posting it there. If I understand correctly, the resolution
> should be to use internal hash algorithms — in this case, SHAKE.
In this case, yes, it seem the consensus (though it's early to call it)
is SHAKE256.
> Now, the question is whether to wait for the implementation of a public API
> to make the change as general as possible, or to try implementing it on the
> PG side?
If you can wait, wait. Otherwise if the consensus changes then you'll
be stuck with flag day eventually.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-10-30 15:52:38 | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-10-30 15:30:44 | Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats() |