-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:48:37AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > I expect you intend to get at least the hooks in, right?
>
> not likely. Keep in mind, this is not how we really wanted to do
> things in the first place. We don't think this is the right strategy
> for integrating libpqtypes with libpq. It over-complicates things and
> we don't really see a use case outside of libpqtypes. If a reasonable
> case can be made for putting the hooks in, we will consider it. Can
> you think of any good reasons for hooking libpq outside of our
> intentions?
Yes, this one comes to mind:
From: sanjay sharma
Subject: Submission of Feature Request : RFC- for Implementing
Transparent Data Encryption in Postgres
<http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-03/msg01231.php>
I know that the original poster wanted to encrypt and decrypt things
server-side, but as was noted in the thread this doesn't make that much
sense because the decryption keys must be somehow kept around there.
But for doing it transparently client-side such libpq hooks might come
in handy...
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIBMBDBcgs9XrR2kYRAoLzAJ0XX4Xo/ZAoqH/RDEHXg2IuCgnCcwCfdE/z
nXz3eP5S2dflpt0GAZULHfU=
=ofgk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
