Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>,
"Moon,
Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-17T13:56:15Z
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 →
-
Revamp the WAL record format.
- 2c03216d8311 9.5.0 cited
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote: > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The cluster-wide TDE eventually encrypts SLRU data and all WAL > > including non-user data related WAL while table/tablespace TDE doesn't > > unless we develop such functionality. In addition, the cluster-wide > > TDE also encrypts system catalogs but in table/tablespace TDE user > > would be able to control that somewhat. That is, if we developed the > > cluster-wide TDE first, when we develop table/tablespace TDE on top of > > that we would need to change TDE so that table/tablespace TDE can > > encrypt even non-user data related data while retaining its simple > > user interface, which would rather make the feature complex, I'm > > concerned. > > Isn't this only a problem of pg_upgrade? Sorry, this is not a use case for pg_upgrade. Rather it's about a separate encryption/decryption utility. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com