Re: [Bacula-devel] space saving in the database

[Adam T. <ath...@si...>]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 2:26 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> One hash is not possible without seriously restricting user's  
> flexibility --
> the MD5 field though not totally used as planned in 2.2. (hopefully  
> it will
> be in 2.2) is a critical field for security and certain government  
> legal
> requirements for the storage of data.

If we still have some design flexibility, how about we *don't* call it  
the "MD5" field?

Something like the "cryptographic hash" field?  That way we don't have  
the completely predictable annoyance and confusion when we *do* end up  
using sha256 or something other than MD5 as the hash.

Adam