On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-10-22 16:47:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hm, and that's why you chose this way of going. My main concern about
>> this patch is that it adds on top of the existing Postgres protocol a
>> layer to encrypt and decrypt the messages between server and client
>> based on GSSAPI. All messages transmitted between client and server
>> are changed to 'g' messages on the fly and switched back to their
>> original state at reception. This is symbolized by the four routines
>> you added in the patch in this purpose, two for frontend and two for
>> backend, each one for encryption and decryption. I may be wrong of
>> course, but it seems to me that this approach will not survive
>> committer-level screening because of the fact that context-level
>> things invade higher level protocol messages.
> Agreed. At least one committer here indeed thinks this approach is not
> acceptable (and I've said so upthread).

OK, so marked as returned with feedback.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to