|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shawn Wang <shawn(dot)wang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>|
|Subject:||Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 06:56:18AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> This thread started later than our effort but important design questions are
> being discussed there. So far there seems to be no consensus whether
> full-instance encryption should be implemented first, so any effort spent on
> this patch might get wasted. When/if there will be an agreement on the design,
> we'll see how much of this patch can be used.
I see. I have marked the patch as returned with feedback in CF
2019-11. Let's see how the other one finishes, before perhaps coming
back to this one.
|Next Message||Andrey Borodin||2019-11-25 08:21:27||Re: pglz performance|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2019-11-25 08:10:55||Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.|