Re: [Firebird-devel] HASH function (CORE-4436)

[Leyne, S. <Se...@br...>]

> > We need to decide whether the algorithm name can be passed dynamically
> > (and thus be presented as "value" in the grammar) or must be
> > predefined (via a string literal or maybe token). The latter gives us
> > more flexibility regarding the result type.
> 
> This is an interesting idea.
> 
> We can use special syntax (like some others system functions):
> 
> HASH( <value> [WITH <algorithm>] )

Why do we need to extend the current function?

Why not create separate, built-in, functions for each hash type with names* that align with the common algorithm name?

MD2()
...
MD5()
SHA0()
SHA1()
SHA_224()
...
SHA512_256()
...
SHA3_224()
...
SHA3_512()


(would save needing to look at documentation to determine the supported algorithms)?



Sean

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions