Re: Proposed patch for key management

>
>
> > >I will say that if the community feels external-only should be the only
> > >option, I will stop working on this feature because I feel the result
> > >would be too fragile to be reliable,
> >
> > I'm do not see why it would be the case. I'm just arguing to have key
> > management in a separate, possibly suid something-else, process, which
> given
> > the security concerns which dictates the feature looks like a must have,
> or
> > at least must be possible. From a line count point of view, it should be
> a
> > small addition to the current code.
>
> All of this hand-waving really isn't helping.
>
> If it's a small addition to the current code then it'd be fantastic if
> you'd propose a specific patch which adds what you're suggesting. I
> don't think either Bruce or I would have any issue with others helping
> out on this effort, but let's be clear- we need something that *is* part
> of core PG, even if we have an ability to have other parts exist outside
> of PG.
>

+1

JD