| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 09:00:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20151022090026.GB8952@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-10-22 16:47:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hm, and that's why you chose this way of going. My main concern about
> this patch is that it adds on top of the existing Postgres protocol a
> layer to encrypt and decrypt the messages between server and client
> based on GSSAPI. All messages transmitted between client and server
> are changed to 'g' messages on the fly and switched back to their
> original state at reception. This is symbolized by the four routines
> you added in the patch in this purpose, two for frontend and two for
> backend, each one for encryption and decryption. I may be wrong of
> course, but it seems to me that this approach will not survive
> committer-level screening because of the fact that context-level
> things invade higher level protocol messages.
Agreed. At least one committer here indeed thinks this approach is not
acceptable (and I've said so upthread).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-10-22 09:20:42 | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-10-22 08:10:44 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |