Re: storing an explicit nonce

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-05-26T19:49:43Z
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,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> OK, that's what I thought.  We already expose the clog and fsm, so
> exposing the hint bits seems acceptable.  If everyone agrees, I will
> adjust my patch to not WAL log hint bit changes.

Robert pointed out that it's not just hint bits where this is happening
though, but it can also happen with btree line pointer arrays.  Even if
we were entirely comfortable accepting that the hint bits are leaked
because of this, leaking the btree line pointer array doesn't seem like
it could possibly be acceptable..

I've not run down that code myself, but I don't have any reason to doubt
Robert's assessment.

Thanks,

Stephen