Horton

Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-16T18:48:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revamp the WAL record format.

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 12:42:55PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/16/19 9:45 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 07:07:20AM -0400, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> In any case it doesn't address my first point, which is limiting the
> >> volume encrypted with the same key. Another valid reason is you might
> >> have data at varying sensitivity levels and prefer different keys be
> >> used for each level.
> > 
> > That seems quite complex.
> 
> 
> How? It is no more complex than encrypting at the tablespace level
> already gives you - in that case you get this property for free if you
> care to use it.

All keys used to encrypt WAL data must be unlocked at all times or crash
recovery, PITR, and replication will not stop when it hits a locked key.
Given that, how much value is there in allowing a key per tablespace?

I don't see how this is better than telling users they have to create a
separate cluster per key.

-- 
  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 +