Re: storing an explicit nonce

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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