Subject: Re: Enquiry about TDE with PgSQL

From: Álvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:33:54 +0100

On 2025-Oct-31, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Yes, we have been avoiding the masquerade for years.  The question is
> can we continue.  From the lack of discussion since April 1, 2025, it
> seems the answer is yes.

Maybe, but I think the only reason for this is that some companies are
implementing it locally in their forks or whatever.  I bet there are
many prospective customers that we (the open source Postgres project)
are not reaching because of lack of certifiability in this area.

Can we continue to ignore it?  My impression is that that strategy will
continue to work, perhaps indefinitely.  Is it a good idea?  Of that I
am not so sure.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Once again, thank you and all of the developers for your hard work on
PostgreSQL.  This is by far the most pleasant management experience of
any database I've worked on."                             (Dan Harris)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00247.php

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:22:22 -0400

> continue to work, perhaps indefinitely.  Is it a good idea?  Of that I

Agreed.  Just to state the obvious, I have never heard of any Postgres
support company discouraging the community from implementing TDE.  In
fact, I have heard them strongly encourage it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.

---

From: Kai Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 21:04:32 +0100

> > > can we continue.  From the lack of discussion since April 1, 2025, it
I think this assumption can be considered a false positive. The main reason
this hasn't surfaced yet is that it first takes some time to adjust, and
more importantly, there are the downstream forks with the necessary changes
that are already in use or continue to be sold. So why stop doing this?

> fact, I have heard them strongly encourage it.
I don't think, as stated initially, that we can continue to ignore this any
longer. As a project, we are losing out on a significant number of users
who are willing to use fully open-source solutions, but are held back due
to this requirement. We had numerous conversations over the last few years,
exactly about this fact, and people went with MySQL, Mongo, or others - not
because of "does this technically make sense to us as engineers, but
because they couldn't fulfill their internal requirements". As Laurenz
already stated very well: "rational arguments are missing the point".

It's not news that we also tried a way of implementing it. What I would
like to achieve here is a group of interested people who can actually make
a call on how this is envisioned to work. Do we handle everything in core
directly, or do we make all necessary parts extensible? This approach may
be more efficient in the long run, as it also enables a variety of other
use cases. This is the conversation I would like to have. We're absolutely
happy and willing to spend as much time as needed to implement a solution
that works directly with PostgreSQL, so we no longer ignore huge parts of
the industry, which will only get worse over the next few years, as more
and more standards are to follow. Once we lose this user base, we all know
how long it will take to regain any of them. I don't think we want, nor
should we, to go down that route, as it would harm us as a project in the
long run. We have been on a rise for many years, but if we want to stay
there and continue to do so, some "checkbox" or "security requirements"
need to be implemented, despite "technical arguments," as otherwise some of
the largest companies worldwide cannot consider using postgres.

>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>
> https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://momjian.us___.YXAzOnBlcmNvbmE6YTpnOmEyOTY2NTBjZWViOWUxZGMyMWI2ZDQwNGQ2NjZjNWQ1Ojc6MGE3MDo5YjgwNjIzYzk1NzI1OGRhZmNiYjJmYjFjNjI4NjFmOTI2NDM0YzM3Y2NhODZmNDE2YmEyY2UyMmM4ZDkxY2FmOnA6VDpO
>   EDB
> https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://enterprisedb.com___.YXAzOnBlcmNvbmE6YTpnOmEyOTY2NTBjZWViOWUxZGMyMWI2ZDQwNGQ2NjZjNWQ1Ojc6NWUxZDo5Y2FiZWYwNzc1YzlhNTY0MGY2ZGM0MjNmMWNjMTY1ZmJlZGNlNmZlMmI4ZjE2ZGY2Y2RmYWEwZjM5NTUzYjY4OnA6VDpO
>

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:53:57 -0400

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 09:04:32PM +0100, Kai Wagner wrote:
> this hasn't surfaced yet is that it first takes some time to adjust, and more
> importantly, there are the downstream forks with the necessary changes that are
> already in use or continue to be sold. So why stop doing this?

Keep in mind this is coming up seven months after the standard became
effective, and it is being brought up by someone from Percona, and not
from an end-user.  I would have thought we would have had more end users
complaining.

> longer. As a project, we are losing out on a significant number of users who
> are willing to use fully open-source solutions, but are held back due to this
> requirement. We had numerous conversations over the last few years, exactly
> about this fact, and people went with MySQL, Mongo, or others - not because of
> "does this technically make sense to us as engineers, but because they couldn't
> fulfill their internal requirements". As Laurenz already stated very well:
> "rational arguments are missing the point".
> 
> It's not news that we also tried a way of implementing it. What I would like to
> achieve here is a group of interested people who can actually make a call on
> how this is envisioned to work. Do we handle everything in core directly, or do
> we make all necessary parts extensible? This approach may be more efficient in

We created a group several years ago, got pretty far, but ended up
stopping for reasons I stated in my blog.  I am not excited about doing
this again unless there is a clear change of community opinion, which I
have not seen.

---

From: Ron Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 17:19:57 -0400

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 4:53 PM Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> more
> who
> like to

We're not complaining because we need TDE sooner than later, and
PGDG's opinions on TDE are well known.

EDB and Percona are there to take our money...

-- 
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:31:10 -0400

> EDB and Percona are there to take our money...

I understand, but historically that is not the way things normally
progress.  I am thinking of Oracle hints.