| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Sasasu <i(at)sasa(dot)su>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Date: | 2021-10-07 18:38:45 |
| Message-ID: | CANwKhkOnfjzD9e64d3f3tQu5dxOpUAUGRDr0znooXf2VKYMPig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 23:08, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Yes, I would prefer we don't use the LSN. I only mentioned it since
> Ants Aasma mentioned LSN use above.
>
Is there a particular reason why you would prefer not to use LSN? I
suggested it because in my view having a variable tweak is still better
than not having it even if we deem the risks of XTS tweak reuse not
important for our use case. The comment was made under the assumption that
requiring wal_log_hints for encryption is acceptable.
--
Ants Aasma
Senior Database Engineerwww.cybertec-postgresql.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-10-07 18:41:15 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-10-07 18:38:29 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |