| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alastair Turner <minion(at)decodable(dot)me>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed patch for key managment |
| Date: | 2020-12-21 21:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20201221214434.GL28841@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 09:38:55PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'll have a go at adding another keyring and/or abstracting the key
> > wrap and see how well a true peer to the passphrase approach fits in.
>
> Having patches to review and consider definitely helps, imv.
I disagree. Our order is:
Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo#Development_Process
so, by posting a patch, you are decided to skip the first _two_
requirements. I think it might be time for me to create a new thread
so it is not confused by whatever is posted here.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-12-21 21:56:48 | Re: Proposed patch for key managment |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-21 21:43:33 | Better client reporting for "immediate stop" shutdowns |