Is this a TODO?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> > I don't really agree that wrapping pl/pgsql with encryptor/decryptor
> > is a bad idea.
>
> It's quite a good idea, because it has more than zero chance of
> succeeding politically in the community.
>
> The fundamental reason why preventing access to pg_proc.prosrc won't
> happen is this: all the pain (and there will be plenty) will be
> inflicted on people who get none of the benefit (because they don't give
> a damn about hiding their own functions' code). The folks who want
> function hiding can shout all they want, but as long as there is a very
> sizable fraction of the community who flat out *don't* want it, it's
> not going to get applied.
>
> Encrypted function bodies avoid this problem because they inflict no
> performance penalty, operational complexity, or client-code breakage
> on people who don't use the feature. They are arguably also a better
> solution because they can guard against more sorts of threats than
> a column-hiding solution can.
>
> I don't deny that the key-management problem is interesting, but it
> seems soluble; moreover, the difficulties that people have pointed to
> are nothing but an attempt to move the goalposts, because they
> correspond to requirements that a column-hiding solution would never
> meet at all.
>
> So if you want something other than endless arguments to happen,
> come up with a nice key-management design for encrypted function
> bodies.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
