From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Trevor Talbot <quension@gmail.com>
Cc: Roberts, Jon <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com>
Cc: Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>
Cc: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
Cc: pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:40:05 -0500
Message-ID: <26811.1198215605@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b42b73150712202109u26d05d01q4f1b8be8d29f763c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b42b73150712202109u26d05d01q4f1b8be8d29f763c@mail.gmail.com>
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Dec 20, 2007 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So if you want something other than endless arguments to happen,
>> come up with a nice key-management design for encrypted function
>> bodies.
> Maybe a key management solution isn't required. If, instead of
> strictly wrapping a language with an encryption layer, we provide
> hooks (actors) that have the ability to operate on the function body
> when it arrives and leaves pg_proc, we may sidestep the key problem
> (leaving it to the user) and open up the doors to new functionality at
> the same time.
I think you're focusing on mechanism and ignoring the question of
whether there is a useful policy for it to implement. Andrew Sullivan
argued upthread that we cannot get anywhere with both keys and encrypted
function bodies stored in the same database (I hope that's an adequate
summary of his point). I'm not convinced that he's right, but that has
to be the first issue we think about. The whole thing is a dead end if
there's no way to do meaningful encryption --- punting an insoluble
problem to the user doesn't make it better.
(This is not to say that you don't have a cute idea there, only that
it's not a license to take our eyes off the ball.)
regards, tom lane
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mmoncure@gmail.com, alvherre@commandprompt.com, jd@commandprompt.com, quension@gmail.com, Jon.Roberts@asurion.com, books@ejurka.com, jonah.harris@gmail.com, wmoran@collaborativefusion.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: function body actors (was: viewing source code)
In-Reply-To: <26811.1198215605@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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