Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-06-14T14:31:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:13:57PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > > > While I agree that configuring full disk encryption is not technically > > > difficult, it requires much more privileged access to the system and > > > basically requires the support of a system administrator. In addition, > > > if a volume is not available for encryption, PostgreSQL support for > > > encryption would still allow for its data to be encrypted and as others > > > have mentioned can be enabled by the DBA alone. > > > > Frankly I'm having difficulties imagining when it could be a real > > problem. It doesn't seem to be such a burden to ask a colleague for > > assistance in case you don't have sufficient permissions to do > > something. And I got a strong feeling that solving bureaucracy issues of > > specific organizations by changing PostgreSQL core in very invasive way > > (keeping in mind testing, maintaining, etc) is misguided. > > In the same time implementing a plugable storage API and then implementing > encrypted / compressed / whatever storage in a standalone extension using > this API seems to be a reasonable thing to do. Agreed, good point. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Commits
-
Dramatically reduce System V shared memory consumption.
- b0fc0df9364d 9.3.0 cited