Re: Transparent column encryption

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:55 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I thought about this some more. I think we could get rid of
> attusertypmod and just hardcode it as -1. The idea would be that if you
> ask for an encrypted column of type, say, varchar(500), the server isn't
> able to enforce that anyway, so we could just prohibit specifying a
> nondefault typmod for encrypted columns.
>
> I'm not sure if there are weird types that use typmods in some way where
> this wouldn't work. But so far I could not think of anything.
>
> I'll look into this some more.

I thought we often treated atttypid, atttypmod, and attcollation as a
trio, these days. It seems a bit surprising that you'd end up adding
columns for two out of the three.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com