Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55CD2E006C for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:42:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79874-03-7 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:42:05 -0400 (AST) Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966692E007B for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:42:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1KEftCB008493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:41:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1KEfsWv072527; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:41:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m1KEfsKo072526; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:41:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:41:54 -0700 From: Michael Fuhr To: Francisco Olarte Sanz Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #3965: UNIQUE constraint fails on long column values Message-ID: <20080220144153.GA72277@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <200802181130.m1IBUNdu060026@wwwmaster.postgresql.org> <47BBEADA.4090308@enterprisedb.com> <877ih0x9kk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <200802201221.03738.folarte@peoplecall.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802201221.03738.folarte@peoplecall.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/184 X-Sequence-Number: 19751 On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21:03PM +0100, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote: > On Wednesday 20 February 2008, Gregory Stark wrote: > > > Unless you need cryptographic security I would not suggest using MD5. MD5 > > is intentionally designed to take a substantial amount of CPU resources to > > calculate. > > I thought it was the exact opposite, quoting from RFC1321: And if you *do* need cryptographic security then don't use MD5, and consider using SHA-256 instead of SHA-1. See RFC 4270 for discussion. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4270.txt -- Michael Fuhr