> On 5 Mar 2023, at 00:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> [ v2-0001-Remove-incidental-md5-function-uses-from-main-reg.patch ]
>
> I've gone through this and have a modest suggestion: let's invent some
> wrapper functions around encode(sha256()) to reduce the cosmetic diffs
> and consequent need for closer study of patch changes. In the attached
> I called them "notmd5()", but I'm surely not wedded to that name.
For readers without all context, wouldn't it be better to encode in the
function name why we're not just calling a hash like md5? Something like
fips_allowed_hash() or similar?
--
Daniel Gustafsson