Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:27:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I expect the same would happen with the shell-command approach suggested
> > up-thread and the prompt-on-stdin approach too, they aren't great but I
> > expect users would still use the feature. As Robert and I have
> > mentioned, there is a good bit of value to having this feature simply
> > because it avoids the need to get someone with root privileges to set up
> > an encrypted volume and I don't think having to use a shell command or
> > providing the password on stdin at startup really changes that very
> > much.
> Understood, but now you are promoting a feature with an admittedly-poor
> API, duplication of an OS feature, and perhaps an invasive change to the
> code. Those are high hurdles.
I thought we called it "incremental development". From the opposite
point of view, would you say we should ban use of passphrase-protected
SSL key files because the current user interface for them is bad?
I have no use for data-at-rest encryption myself, but I wouldn't stop
development just because the initial design proposal doesn't include
top-notch key management.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: