Re: Moving forward with TDE

> Unless somebody in the community remembers open questions/issues with
> TDE that were never addressed I suggest simply iterating with our
> usual testing/reviewing process. For now I'm going to change the
> status of the CF entry [1] to "Waiting for Author" since the patchset
> doesn't pass the CI [2].

Thanks, enclosed is a new version that is rebased on HEAD and fixes a
bug that the new pg_control_init() test picked up.

Known issues (just discovered by me in testing the latest revision) is
that databases created from `template0` are not decrypting properly,
but `template1` works fine, so going to dig in on that soon.

> One limitation of the design described on the wiki I see is that it
> seems to heavily rely on AES:
>
> > We will use Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) [4]. We will offer three key length options (128, 192, and 256-bits) selected at initdb time with --file-encryption-method
>
> (there doesn't seem to be any mention of the hash/MAC algorithms,
> that's odd). In the future we should be able to add the support of
> alternative algorithms. The reason is that the algorithms can become
> weak every 20 years or so, and the preferred algorithms may also
> depend on the region. This should NOT be implemented in this
> particular patchset, but the design shouldn't prevent from
> implementing this in the future.

Yes, we definitely are considering multiple algorithms support as part
of this effort.

Best,

David