Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption

From: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
Date: 2017-06-14 09:04:26
Message-ID: 20170614090426.GA7249@e733.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Ants,

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:07:49AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/12/17 17:11, Ants Aasma wrote:
> > I'm curious if the community thinks this is a feature worth having?
> > Even considering that security experts would classify this kind of
> > encryption as a checkbox feature.
> File system encryption already exists and is well-tested. I don't see
> any big advantages in re-implementing all of this one level up. You
> would have to touch every single place in PostgreSQL backend and tool
> code where a file is being read or written. Yikes.

I appreciate your work, but unfortunately I must agree with Peter.

On Linux you can configure the full disc encryption using LUKS /
dm-crypt in like 5 minutes [1]. On FreeBSD you can do the same using
geli [2]. In my personal opinion PostgreSQL is already complicated
enough. A few companies that hired system administrators that are too
lazy to read two or three man pages is not a reason to re-implement file
system encryption (or compression, or mirroring if that matters) in any
open source RDBMS.


Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-06-14 10:15:35 Re: A bug in mapping attributes in ATExecAttachPartition()
Previous Message Marina Polyakova 2017-06-14 08:48:25 WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors