On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Just to be clear, I don't have any issue with discussing the idea that > we want to get to a point where we can work with multiple keys and > encrypt different tables with different keys (or not encrypt certain > tables, et al) with the goal of implementing the single-key approach in > a way that allows us to expand on it down the road easily, I just don't > think we need to have it all done in the very first patch which adds the > ability to encrypt the data files. Maybe you're not saying that it has > to be included in the first implementation, in which case we seem to > just be talking past each other, but that isn't the impression I got..
We don't want to implement all-cluster encryption with a simple user API and then realize we need another API for later encryption features, do we? And we are not going to know that if we don't talk about it, but hey, this is just an email thread and I can marshal opposition to the feature later when it appears, and point this all out again. -- 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 + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
