| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Sasasu <i(at)sasa(dot)su>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Date: | 2021-10-07 18:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20211007184346.GA24305@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 09:38:45PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 23:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Yes, I would prefer we don't use the LSN. I only mentioned it since
> Ants Aasma mentioned LSN use above.
>
>
> Is there a particular reason why you would prefer not to use LSN? I suggested
> it because in my view having a variable tweak is still better than not having
> it even if we deem the risks of XTS tweak reuse not important for our use case.
> The comment was made under the assumption that requiring wal_log_hints for
> encryption is acceptable.
Well, using the LSN means we have to store the LSN unencrypted, and that
means we have to carve out a 16-byte block on the page that is not
encrypted.
--
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 | Robert Haas | 2021-10-07 18:44:43 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-10-07 18:41:15 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |