On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Postgres has always been my sql db of choice, but I'm woefully ignorant. I > just don't get to work with it enough. > > So here's the question. Imagine an app that has open data and very secure > data (not from the from users, but also from intruders, gvmt agencies, > etc). The designer decides to split the tables across two mount points, > one normal, the other encrypted. Still, he wants the app to work > seamlessly (my first use of that buzzword). > > Does this architecture work? Hints on which commands to read? > > JOIN ... ? > > -- > Lan Barnes > > SCM Analyst Linux Guy > Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > This sounds more like a server configuration issue than SQL. SQL doesn't care where the tables exist on the filesystem, only that they exist. The server does care though. I don't see the benefits of this unless the server itself is somehow compromised, lost, stolen or taken as evidence . If someone can gain access to the database server, it can use Postgres itself to read the tables that are on the encrypted filesystem. -- Mark Schoonover, CMDBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/markschoonover http://marksitblog.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
