| From: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transparent column encryption |
| Date: | 2022-11-24 09:22:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20221124102206.1666d33e@karst |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 19:45:06 +0100
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 28.10.22 12:16, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
[...]
> > * I wonder if encryption related fields in ParameterDescription and
> > RowDescription could be optional somehow? The former might be quite
> > large when using a lot of parameters (like, imagine a large and ugly
> > "IN($1...$N)"). On the other hand, these messages are not sent in high
> > frequency anyway...
>
> They are only used if you turn on the column_encryption protocol option.
> Or did you mean make them optional even then?
I meant even when column_encryption is turned on.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-11-24 09:25:09 | Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-11-24 09:13:39 | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |