Re: Transparent data encryption support as an extension

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transparent data encryption support as an extension
Date: 2019-04-12 10:04:16
Message-ID: CAD21AoCj8-tCQnFXzRDJyPkEdA0kQDfw3XTWWLdocrahYxqVng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 6:34 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hackers,
>
> I read many mail discussions in supporting data at rest encryption support in
> PostgreSQL.
>
> I checked the discussions around full instance encryption or tablespace or
> table level encryption. In my observation, all the proposals are trying to modify
> the core code to support encryption.
>
> I am thinking of an approach of providing tablespace level encryption support
> including WAL using an extension instead of changing the core code by adding
> hooks in xlogwrite and xlogread flows, reorderbuffer flows and also by adding
> smgr plugin routines to support encryption and decryption of other pages.
>
> Definitely this approach does't work for full instance encryption.
>
> Any opinions/comments/problems in evaluating the encryption with an extesnion
> approach?
>

The discussion[1] of similar proposal might be worth to read. The
proposal was adding hook in BufferSync, although for differential
backup purpose.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20051502087457@webcorp01e.yandex-team.ru

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-04-12 10:27:44 Calling pgstat_report_wait_end() before ereport(ERROR)
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2019-04-12 09:34:13 Transparent data encryption support as an extension