| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption |
| Date: | 2017-06-15 23:56:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20170615235636.7rk3mhbww6h2f5zp@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-15 19:44:43 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Understood, but now you are promoting a feature with an admittedly-poor
> API, duplication of an OS feature, and perhaps an invasive change to the
> code.
*Perhaps* an invasive change to the code? To me it's pretty evident
that this'll be a pretty costly feature from that angle. We've quite a
few places that manipulate on-disk files, and they'll all have to be
manipulated. Several of those are essentially critical sections, adding
memory allocations to them wouldn't be good, so we'll need
pre-allocation APIs.
I've only skimmed the discussion, but based on that I'm very surprised
how few concerns about this feature's complexity / maintainability
impact have been raised.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-16 00:08:05 | Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-15 23:55:13 | Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption |