From: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
Date: | 2019-08-15 09:24:46 |
Message-ID: | 61852.1565861086@antos |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:36:35PM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > I can work on it right away but don't know where to start.
>
> I think the big open question is whether there will be acceptance of an
> all-cluster encyption feature. I guess if no one objects, we can move
> forward.
>
> > First, I think we should use a code repository to integrate [1] and [2]
> > instead of sending diffs back and forth. That would force us to resolve
> > conflicts soon and help to avoid duplicate work. The diffs would be created
> > only whe we need to post the next patch version to pgsql-hackers for review,
> > otherwise the discussions of details can take place elsewhere.
>
> Well, we can do that, or just follow the TODO list and apply items as we
> complete them. We have found that doing everything in one big patch is
> just too hard to review and get accepted.
>
> > The most difficult problem I see now regarding the collaboration is agreement
> > on the key management user interface. The Full-Cluster Encryption feature [1]
> > should not add configuration variables or even tools that the next, more
> > sophisticated version [2] deprecates immediately. Part of the problem is that
>
> Yes, the all-cluster encryption feature has _no_ SQL-level API to
> control it, just a GUC variable that you can use SHOW to see the
> encryption mode.
>
> > [2] puts all (key management related) interaction of postgres with the
> > environment into an external library. As I pointed out in my response to [2],
> > this will not work for frontend applications (e.g. pg_waldump). I think the
> > key management UI for [2] needs to be designed first even if PG 13 should
> > adopt only [1].
>
> I think there are several directions we can go after all-cluster
> encryption,
I think I misunderstood. What you summarize in
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Transparent_Data_Encryption#TODO_for_Full-Cluster_Encryption
does include
i.e. per-tablespace keys, right? Then the collaboration should be easier than
I thought.
--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2019-08-15 09:38:30 | Re: Zedstore - compressed in-core columnar storage |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-08-15 09:10:24 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |