Horton

Re: Key management with tests

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, 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: 2021-02-01T23:34:53Z
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. 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:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 08:23:11AM -0500, Tom Kincaid wrote:
> > I propose that we meet to discuss what approach we want to use to move TDE
> > forward.  We then start a new thread with a proposal on the approach
> > and finalize it via community consensus. I will invite Bruce, Stephen and
> > Masahiko to this meeting. If anybody else would like to participate in this
> > discussion and subsequently in the effort to get TDE in PG1x, please let me
> > know. Assuming Bruce, Stephen and Masahiko are down for this, I (or a volunteer
> > from this meeting) will post the proposal for how we move this patch forward in
> > another thread. Hopefully, we can get consensus on that and subsequently
> > restart the execution of delivering this feature.
> 
> We got complaints that decisions were not publicly discussed, or were
> too long, so I am not sure this helps.

If the notes are published afterwords as an explanation of why certain
choices were made, I suspect it'd be reasonably well received.  The
concern about back-room discussions is more that decisions are made
without explanation as to why, provided we avoid that, I believe they
can be helpful.

So, +1 for my part to have the conversation.

Thanks,

Stephen