From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and encrypted files |
Date: | 2019-10-07 19:50:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY0493X3GqfXtiXt9ooZrpKV4jSp5nCWnvUnKpJioLuoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> However the design doesn't seem to be stable enough at the
> moment for coding to make sense.
Well, I think the question is whether working further on your patch
could produce some things that everyone would agree are a step
forward. If every iota of that patch is garbage dredged up from the
depths of the Mos Eisley sewers, then let's forget about it, but I
don't think that's the case. As I said on the thread about that patch,
and have also said here, what I learned from looking at that patch is
that the system probably needs some significant restructuring before
there's any hope of incorporating encryption in a reasonably-sized,
reasonably clean patch. For example, some files need to be written a
block at a time instead of a character at a time. The idea just
discussed -- changing the CLOG page format to leave room for the
encryption nonce and a checksum -- also fall into that category. I
think there are probably a number of others.
No matter what anybody thinks about whether we should have one key,
multiple keys, passwords inside the database, passwords outside the
database, whatever ... that kind of restructuring work has got to be
done first. And it seems like by having all this discussion about the
design, we're basically getting to a situation where we're making no
progress on that stuff. So that's bad. There's nothing *wrong* with
talking about how many keys we had and how key management ought to
work and where passwords should be stored, and we need to make sure
that whatever we do initially doesn't close the door to doing more and
better things later. But, if those discussions have the effect of
blocking work on the basic infrastructure tasks that need to be done,
that's actually counterproductive at this stage.
We should all put our heads together and agree that however we think
key management ought to be handled, it'll be a lot easier to get our
preferred form of key management into PostgreSQL if, while that
discussion rages on, we knocked down some of the infrastructure
problems that *absolutely any patch* for this kind of feature is
certain to face.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-10-07 19:52:41 | Re: PATCH: Add uri percent-encoding for binary data |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-10-07 19:40:22 | Re: Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and encrypted files |