| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transparent column encryption |
| Date: | 2023-03-29 16:08:29 |
| Message-ID: | e707ff34-4906-2551-3b16-8e3eea5dbb54@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.03.23 19:12, Andres Freund 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.
>
> Why not just use typmod for the underlying typmod? It doesn't seem like
> encrypted datums will need that? Or are you using it for something important there?
Yes, the typmod of encrypted types stores the encryption algorithm.
(Also, mixing a type with the typmod of another type is weird in a
variety of ways, so this is a quite clean solution.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-03-29 16:15:02 | Re: what should install-world do when docs are not available? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-03-29 16:04:19 | Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session |