Re: storing an explicit nonce
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, Sasasu <i@sasa.su>
Date: 2021-10-07T18:52:47Z
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 →
-
Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.
- 2cb1272445d2 15.0 landed
-
pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.
- aa01051418f1 15.0 landed
-
pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.
- 9a974cbcba00 15.0 landed
-
Fix for new Boolean node
- cf925936ecc0 15.0 cited
-
Improve error handling of HMAC computations
- 5513dc6a304d 15.0 cited
-
Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence
- 95d77149c535 14.0 landed
-
Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.
- d168b666823b 14.0 cited
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 02:44:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this whole discussion is about whether we need full page images > > for hint bit changes. I think we do if we use the LSN for the nonce (in > > the old patch), and probably need it for hint bit changes when using > > block cipher modes (XTS) if we feel basebackup could read only part of a > > 16-byte page change. > > I think all the encryption modes that we're still considering have the > (very desirable) property that changing a single bit of the > unencrypted page perturbs the entire output. But that just means that Well, XTS perturbs the 16-byte block, while CBC changes the rest of the page. > encrypted clusters will have to run in the same mode as clusters with > checksums, or clusters with wal_log_hints=on, features which the > community has already accepted as having reasonable overhead. I have > in the past expressed skepticism about whether that overhead is really > small enough to be considered acceptable, but if I recall correctly, > the test results posted to the list suggest that you need a working > set just a little bit large than shared_buffers to make it really > sting. And that's not a super-common thing to do. Anyway, if people > aren't screaming about the overhead of that system now, they're not > likely to complain about applying it to some new situation either. Yes, agreed, good conclusions. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.