| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Toshi Harada <harada(dot)toshi(at)po(dot)ntt-tx(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "WIP: Data at rest encryption" patch and, PostgreSQL 11-beta3 |
| Date: | 2019-06-25 12:28:00 |
| Message-ID: | 485700a0-98b6-2fe0-fbab-bc789b59dca9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-06-17 11:23, Antonin Houska wrote:
> I'm thinking how to teach postmaster to accept FEBE protocol connections
> temporarily, just to receive the key. The user applications like pg_ctl,
> initdb or pg_upgrade would retrieve the key / password from the DBA, then
> start postmaster and send it the key.
>
> Perhaps the message format should be a bit generic so that extensions like
> this can use it to receive their keys too.
>
> (The idea of an unix socket or named pipe I proposed upthread is not good
> because it's harder to implement in a portable way.)
How are the requirements here different from ssl_passphrase_command?
Why do we need a new mechanism?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pantilimonov misha | 2019-06-25 12:30:11 | [GSoC] artbufmgr |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-06-25 12:23:05 | Re: fsync error handling in pg_receivewal, pg_recvlogical |