Re: storing an explicit nonce

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce
Date: 2021-05-26 02:39:16
Message-ID: 20210526023916.GT3048@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:23:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If I’ve got it right, that does mean that the nonces on the replica might
> differ from those on the primary though and I’m not completely sure how I feel
> about that. We might wish to explicitly document that, due to such risk, users
> should use unique and distinct keys on each replica that are different from the
> primary and each other (not a bad idea in general anyway, but would be quite
> important with this strategy).

I have to think more about this, but we were planning to allow different
primary and replica relation encryption keys to allow for relation key
rotation. The WAL key has to be the same for both.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2021-05-26 02:41:56 Re: storing an explicit nonce
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2021-05-26 02:23:46 Re: storing an explicit nonce