From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:20:30 -0400
Message-ID: <20170613172030.GK3151@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f540898-d703-7d83-3f61-f6b58a74a3e6@joeconway.com>
References: <20170613132416.GD3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
<a79fc30c-848a-cf88-a2ff-0234df45f1dc@2ndquadrant.com>
<20170613150421.GE3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
<20170613160434.GC13873@momjian.us>
<20170613162301.GF3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CA+TgmoYeEigW3ERT5AKUc-QWBOSuS5ZDFJDRJm1=hDv2Q=0zLw@mail.gmail.com>
<26430417-5b4b-b647-9a23-3da213714ffe@joeconway.com>
<20170613165836.GE13873@momjian.us>
<20170613170522.GI3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
<8f540898-d703-7d83-3f61-f6b58a74a3e6@joeconway.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Joe,
* Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
> Except shell escaping issues, etc, etc
That's not an issue- we're talking about reading the stdout of some
other process, there's no shell escaping that has to be done there.
> > Let us, please, stop stressing over the right way to do key management
> > as part of this discussion about providing encryption. The two are
> > different things and we do not need to solve both at once.
>
> Not stressing, but this is an important part of the design and should be
> done correctly. It is also very simple, so should not be hard to add.
I disagree that proper key management is "simple". If we really get to
a point where we think we have a simple answer to it then perhaps that
can be implemented in addition to the encryption piece in the same
release cycle- but they certainly don't need to be in the same patch,
nor do we need to make good key management a requirement for adding
encryption support.
> > Further, yes, we will definitely want to get to a point where we can
> > encrypt subsets of the system in different ways, but that doesn't have
> > to be done in the first implementation either.
>
> No, it doesn't, but that doesn't change the utility of doing it this way
> from the start.
No, but it seriously changes the level of complexity. I feel like we're
trying to go from zero to light speed here because there's an idea that
it's "simple" to add X, Y or Z additional requirement beyond the basic
feature, but we don't have anything yet. I continue to be of the
feeling that we should start simple and keep it to the basic feature
first and make sure that we can actually get that right before we start
looking into adding on additional bits.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, mail@joeconway.com, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, ants.aasma@eesti.ee
Subject: Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
In-Reply-To: <20170613172030.GK3151@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox