Message-ID: <9db5f4a38ad248accaba926ba75e10ed50e5ef1d.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Downgrade pgsql 17 to pgsql 12 question
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Ashish Mukherjee <ashish.mukherjee@gmail.com>, Merlin Moncure
	 <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 11:47:00 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CACgMzfwyMxq+qVFBMXzsMFFdBKJ5aRf_REX01KHL1mcVpRKwyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CACgMzfxO7h+Bj4T8rjTV=trM3+Uw=jOAcUE+0Kimv4DSAVU1JA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAHyXU0ynqbCHrw3XvofEzidHow4tx1FFGNB2FUR5-wj-EhLcNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CACgMzfwyMxq+qVFBMXzsMFFdBKJ5aRf_REX01KHL1mcVpRKwyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9db5f4a38ad248accaba926ba75e10ed50e5ef1d.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2025-09-30 at 13:53 +0530, Ashish Mukherjee wrote:
> Now the consideration is to use some other encryption option for the
> database which will work fine on pgsql 17. Cybertec's technology is
> one route, the other is EDB. I am happy to hear experiences of folks
> here with pgsql encryption options for v17 on large databases
> (2.5T in our case).

I will refrain from making a recommendation, but you should know that
data-at-rest encryption will always incur a certain performance penalty.

Whatever solution you choose, you should run performance tests.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe