Andreas, can you please weigh in here since your voice is important to this process?
Robbie Harwood <rharw...@redhat.com> writes: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> 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). > > Okay, I'll make some changes. Before I do, though, since this is not > the approach I came up with, can you explicitly state what you're > looking for here? It subjectively seems that I'm getting a lot of > feedback of "this feels wrong" without suggestion for improvement. > > To be clear, what I need to know is: > > - What changes do you want to see in the wire protocol? (And how will > fallback be supported if that's affected?) > > - Since this seems to be an important sticking point, what files am I > encouraged to change (or prohibited from changing)? (Fallback makes > this complex.) > > - I've been assuming that we care about fallback, but I'd like to be > told that it's something postgres actually wants to see because it's > the most intricate part of these changes. (I'm reasonably confident > that the code becomes simpler without it, and I myself have no use for > it.) > > If I understand what you're asking for (and the above is intended to be > sure that I will), this will not be a trivial rework, so I want to be > really sure before doing that because writing this code a third time is > something I don't relish. > > Thanks, > --Robbie
Description: PGP signature