From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
Date: | 2021-05-26 20:40:48 |
Message-ID: | 20210526204048.GW3048@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 01:56:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> However, I believe that if we store the nonce in the page explicitly,
> as proposed here, rather trying to derive it from the LSN, then we
> don't need to worry about this kind of masking, which I think is
> better from both a security perspective and a performance perspective.
You are saying that by using a non-LSN nonce, you can write out the page
with a new nonce, but the same LSN, and also discard the page during
crash recovery and use the WAL copy?
I am confused why checksums, which are widely used, acceptably require
wal_log_hints, but there is concern that file encryption, which is
heavier, cannot acceptably require wal_log_hints. I must be missing
something.
Why can't checksums also throw away hint bit changes like you want to do
for file encryption and not require wal_log_hints?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-26 20:42:20 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-05-26 20:25:58 | Re: Commitfest app vs. pgsql-docs |