Re: storing an explicit nonce

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, 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: 2021-05-27T22:42:58Z
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.

Hi,

On 2021-05-27 16:55:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> No. You're confusing what I was saying here, in the contents of your
> comments about the limitations of AES-GCM-SIV, with the discussion
> with Bruce about nonce generation.

Ah. I think the focus on LSNs confused me a bit.

FWIW:
Nist guidance on IVs for AES GCM (surprisingly readable):
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-38d.pdf
AES-GCM-SIV (harder to read):
https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/168.pdf

Greetings,

Andres Freund