Re: Transparent column encryption - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Transparent column encryption
Date
Msg-id 963aa100-7e78-3463-0645-700eaaa325f2@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transparent column encryption  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Transparent column encryption
List pgsql-hackers
New version with some merge conflicts resolved, and I have worked to 
resolve several "TODO" items that I had noted in the code.

On 13.09.22 10:27, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is an updated patch that resolves some merge conflicts; no 
> functionality changes over v6.
> 
> On 30.08.22 13:35, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Here is an updated patch.
>>
>> I mainly spent time on adding a full set of DDL commands for the keys. 
>> This made the patch very bulky now, but there is not really anything 
>> surprising in there.  It probably needs another check of permission 
>> handling etc., but it's got everything there to try it out.  Along 
>> with the DDL commands, the pg_dump side is now fully implemented.
>>
>> Secondly, I isolated the protocol changes into a protocol extension 
>> with the name _pq_.column_encryption.  So by default there are no 
>> protocol changes and this feature is disabled.  AFAICT, we haven't 
>> actually ever used the _pq_ protocol extension mechanism, so it would 
>> be good to review whether this was done here in the intended way.
>>
>> At this point, the patch is sort of feature complete, meaning it has 
>> all the concepts, commands, and interfaces that I had in mind.  I have 
>> a long list of things to recheck and tighten up, based on earlier 
>> feedback and some things I found along the way.  But I don't currently 
>> plan any more major architectural or design changes, pending 
>> feedback.  (Also, the patch is now very big, so anything additional 
>> might be better for a future separate patch.)

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans