Horton

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

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope@jackdb.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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: 2019-08-16T00:34:53Z
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.

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:24:46AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote:
> > > I think there are several directions we can go after all-cluster
> > > encryption,
> > 
> > I think I misunderstood. What you summarize in
> > 
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Transparent_Data_Encryption#TODO_for_Full-Cluster_Encryption
> > 
> > does include
> > 
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoBjrbxvaMpTApX1cEsO=8N=nc2xVZPB0d9e-VjJ=YaRnw@mail.gmail.com
> > 
> > i.e. per-tablespace keys, right? Then the collaboration should be easier than
> > I thought.
> 
> No, there is a single tables/indexes key and a WAL key, plus keys for
> rotation.  I explained why per-tablespace keys don't add much value.

Nothing in the discussion that I've seen, at least, has changed my
opinion that tablespace-based keys *would* add significant value,
particularly if it'd be difficult to support per-table keys.  Of course,
if we can get per-table keys without too much difficulty then that would
be better.

Thanks,

Stephen