| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What object types should be in schemas? |
| Date: | 2023-01-25 19:06:47 |
| Message-ID: | 80f80f9d-a99e-d02d-47fc-09672fb15d32@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12.01.23 18:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think one important criterion to think about is how does encryption work
> when you have per-customer (or per-whatever) schemas. Is the concept of
> a column encryption [objtype] a thing that you would like to set up per
> customer? In that case, you will probably want that object to live in
> that customer's schema. Otherwise, you'll force the DBA to come up with
> a naming scheme that includes the customer name in the column encryption
> object.
Makes sense. In my latest patch I have moved these key objects into
schemas.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Moench-Tegeder | 2023-01-25 19:06:50 | Re: pg_upgrade from PG-14.5 to PG-15.1 failing due to non-existing function |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-25 19:05:39 | Re: pgsql: Rename contrib module basic_archive to basic_wal_module |