> On 6 Mar 2023, at 15:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> 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?
>
> I'd prefer shorter than that --- all these queries are laid out on the
> expectation of a very short function name. Maybe "fipshash()"?
>
> We could make the comment introducing the function declarations more
> elaborate, too.
fipshash() with an explanatory comments sounds like a good idea.
--
Daniel Gustafsson