Re: storing an explicit nonce

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:00 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I do want to point out, as I think I did when we discussed this but want
> to be sure it's also captured here- I don't think that temporary file
> access should be forced to be block-oriented when it's naturally (in
> very many cases) sequential. To that point, I'm thinking that we need a
> temp file access API through which various systems work that's
> sequential and therefore relatively similar to the existing glibc, et
> al, APIs, but by going through our own internal API (which more
> consistently works with the glibc APIs and provides better error
> reporting in the event of issues, etc) we can then extend it to work as
> an encrypted stream instead.

Regarding this, would it use block-oriented access on the backend?

I agree that we need a better API layer through which all filesystem
access is routed. One of the notable weaknesses of the Cybertec patch
is that it has too large a code footprint,

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