| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Date: | 2021-05-25 23:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20210525235505.GR20766@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2021-05-25 16:34:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The nonce does need to be absolutely unique for a given encryption key and
> > therefore needs to be global in some form.
>
> You can achieve that without a global counter though, by prepending a
> per-relation nonce with some local counter.
>
> I'm doubtful it's worth it though - compared to all the other costs, one
> shared atomic increment is pretty OK price to pay I think.
Yes, I tend to agree.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-25 23:56:44 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-25 23:54:22 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |