Horton

Re: storing an explicit nonce

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-05-25T23:55:06Z
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. Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.

  2. pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.

  3. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  4. Fix for new Boolean node

  5. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  6. Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence

  7. Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.

Greetings,

* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2021-05-25 16:34:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > The nonce does need to be absolutely unique for a given encryption key and
> > therefore needs to be global in some form.
> 
> You can achieve that without a global counter though, by prepending a
> per-relation nonce with some local counter.
> 
> I'm doubtful it's worth it though - compared to all the other costs, one
> shared atomic increment is pretty OK price to pay I think.

Yes, I tend to agree.

Thanks,

Stephen