From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
Date: | 2021-05-25 23:59:30 |
Message-ID: | 20210525235929.GT20766@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 17:22:43 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Err, to be clear, I was saying that we could exclude the hint bits
> > *entirely* from what's being encrypted and I don't think that would be a
> > huge issue.
>
> It's a *huge* issue. For one, the computational effort of doing so would
> be a problem. But there's a more fundamental issue: We don't even know
> the type of the page at the time we write data out! We can't do a lookup
> of pg_class in the checkpointer to see whether the page is a heap page
> where we need to mask out hint bits.
Yeah, I hadn't been contemplating the challenge in figuring out if the
changes were hint bit changes or if it was some other page- merely
reflecting on the question of if hint bits, themselves, could possibly
be excluded.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-26 00:03:14 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-25 23:58:44 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |