On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:53:01PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:24:30PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I'm wondering whether you've considered storing all the keys in one
> > file instead of a file per key. The reason I ask is that it seems to
> > me that the key rotation procedure would be a lot simpler if it were
> > all in one file. You could just create a temporary file and atomically
> > rename it over the existing file. If you see a temporary file you're
> > always free to remove it. This is a lot simpler than what you have
> > right now. The "repair" concept pretty much goes away completely,
> > which seems nice. Granted I don't know exactly how to store multiple
> > keys in one file, but I bet there's some way to do it.
>
> We envisioned allowing heap/index key rotation by having a standby with
> the same WAL key as the primary but different heap/index keys so that we
> can failover to the standby to change the heap/index key and then change
> the WAL key. This separation allows that. We also might need some
> additional keys later and this allows that. I do like simplicity, but
> the complexity here seems to serve a need.
Just to close this issue, several scripts, e,g., PIV, AWS, need to store
data to indicate the cluster encryption key used, and those need to be
kept synchronized with the wrapped data keys. Having separate
directories for each cluster key version allows that to work cleanly.
> > The README in src/backend/crypto does not explain how the scripts in
> > that directory are intended to be used. If I want to use AWS Secrets
> > Manager with this feature, I can see that I should use
> > ckey_aws.sh.sample as a basis for that integration, but I don't know
> > what I should do with the script because the README says nothing about
> > it. I am frankly pretty doubtful about the idea of shipping a bunch of
> > /bin/sh scripts as a best practice; for one thing, that's totally
> > unusable on Windows, and it also means that this is dependent on
> > /bin/sh existing and having the behavior we expect and on all the
> > other executables in these scripts as well. But, at the very least,
> > there needs to be a clearer explanation of how the scripts are
> > intended to be used, which parts people are supposed to modify, what
> > arguments they're going to get called with, and things like that.
>
> I added comments to most of the scripts. I don't know what more I can
> do, or what other language would be appropriate.
I think someone would need to write Windows versions of these scripts.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
