On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:04:13PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Well, I think they might do that to reduce encryption overhead. I think > > tests have shown that is not an issue, but we will need to test further. > > I seriously doubt that's why and I don't think there's actually much > value in trying to figure out the "why" here- the question is, do those > systems answer the check-box requirement that was brought up on the call > as the justification for this feature? If so, then clearly not > everything is required to be encrypted and we shouldn't be stressing > over trying to do that.
We will stress in trying _not_ to encrypt everything. > > I am not sure of the downside of encrypting everything, since it leaks > > the least information and has a minimal user API and code impact. What > > is the value of encrypting only the user rows? Better key control? > > Yes, better key control, and better user API, and avoiding having an Uh, there is no user API for all-cluster encryption except for the administrator. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
