On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 5:22 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:41:09PM -0500, Tom Kincaid wrote: > > I would also like to add a "not wanted" entry for this feature on the > > TODO list, baaed on the feature's limited usefulness, but I already > > asked about that and no one seems to feel we don't want it. > > > > > > I want to avoid seeing this happen. As a result of a lot of customer and > > user > > discussions, around their criteria for choosing a database, I believe TDE > > is an > > important feature and having it appear with a "not-wanted" tag will keep the > > version of PostgreSQL released by the community out of certain (and possibly > > growing) number of deployment scenarios which I don't think anybody wants to > > see. > > With pg_upgrade, I could work on it out of the tree until it became > popular, with a small non-user-visible part in the backend. With the > Windows port, the port wasn't really visible to users until it we ready. > > For the key management part of TDE, it can't be done outside the tree, > and it is user-visible before it is useful, so that restricts how much > incremental work can be committed to the tree for TDE. I highlighted > that concern emails months ago, but never got any feedback --- now it > seems people are realizing the ramifications of that. > > > I think the current situation to be as follows (if I missed something please > > let me know): > > > > 1) We need to get the current patch for Key Management reviewed and tested > > further. > > > > I spoke to Bruce just now he will see if can get somebody to do this. > > Well, if we don't get anyone committed to working on the data encryption > part of TDE, the key management part is useless, so why review/test it > further? > > Although Sawada-san and Stephen Frost worked on the patch, they have not > commented much on my additions, and only a few others have commented on > the code, and there has been no discussion on who is working on the next > steps. This indicates to me that there is little interest in moving > this feature forward,
TBH I’m confused a bit about the recent situation of this patch, but I can contribute to KMS work by discussing, writing, reviewing, and testing the patch. Also, I can work on the data encryption part of TDE (we need more discussion on that though). If the community concerns about the high-level design and thinks the design reviews by cryptography experts are still needed, we would need to do that first since the data encryption part of TDE depends on KMS. As far as I know, we have done that many times on pgsql-hackers, on offl-line and including the discussion on the past proposal, etc but given that the community still has a concern, it seems that we haven’t been able to share the details of the discussion enough that led to the design decision or the design is still not good. Honestly, I’m not sure how this feature can get consensus. But maybe we would need to have a break from refining the patch now and we need to marshal the discussions so far and the point behind the design so that everyone can understand why this feature is designed in that way. To do that, it might be a good start to sort the wiki page since it has data encryption part, KMS, and ToDo mixed. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
