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.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match