| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key management with tests |
| Date: | 2021-02-01 22:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20210201221611.GA26513@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 05:05:06PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> TBH I’m confused a bit about the recent situation of this patch, but
> I
Yes, it is easy to get confused.
> can contribute to KMS work by discussing, writing, reviewing, and
> testing the patch. Also, I can work on the data encryption part of TDE
Great.
> (we need more discussion on that though). If the community concerns
> about the high-level design and thinks the design reviews by
> cryptography experts are still needed, we would need to do that first
> since the data encryption part of TDE depends on KMS. As far as I
I totally agree. While we don't need to commit the key management patch
to the tree before moving forward, we should have agreement on the key
management patch before doing more work on this. If we can't agree on
the key management part, there is no value in working further, as I
stated in an earlier email.
> know, we have done that many times on pgsql-hackers, on offl-line and
> including the discussion on the past proposal, etc but given that the
> community still has a concern, it seems that we haven’t been able
> to share the details of the discussion enough that led to the design
> decision or the design is still not good. Honestly, I’m not sure how
> this feature can get consensus. But maybe we would need to have a
Yes, I am also confused.
> break from refining the patch now and we need to marshal the
> discussions so far and the point behind the design so that everyone
> can understand why this feature is designed in that way. To do that,
> it might be a good start to sort the wiki page since it has data
> encryption part, KMS, and ToDo mixed.
What I ended up doing is to moving the majority of the
non-data-encryption part of the wiki into the patch, either in docs or
README files, since people asked for more of this in the patch, and
having the information in two places is confusing.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-02-01 22:16:52 | Re: Fix DROP TABLESPACE on Windows with ProcSignalBarrier? |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-02-01 22:15:44 | Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging |