Re: Key management with tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Chen
Subject Re: Key management with tests
Date
Msg-id CAA3qoJ=UL-7R58bE1AuiHeiRr+5wDtLD5a1F7yuArTqU0sR=Rw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Key management with tests  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thank you for your reply,

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:08 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

No, we can't 'modify the page format as we wish'- if we change away from
using a C structure then we're going to be modifying quite a bit of
code which otherwise doesn't need to be changed.  The proposed flag
doesn't actually make a different page format work, the only thing it
would do would be to allow some parts of the cluster to be encrypted and
other parts not be, but I don't know that that's actually a useful
capability or a good reason to use one of those bits.  Having it handled
on a cluster level, at initdb time through pg_control, seems like it'd
work just fine.


Yes, I realized that for cluster-level encryption, it would be unwise to flag a single page(Unless we want to do it at relation-level). Forgive me for not describing clearly, the 'modify the page' I said means the method you mentioned, not modifying the C structure. My original motivation is to avoid storing in an unconventional format without a description of the C structure. However, as I just said, it seems that we should not set the flag for a single page. Maybe it's enough to just add a comment description?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Moving other hex functions to /common
Next
From: Edmund Horner
Date:
Subject: Re: Tid scan improvements