Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maybe a better TODO would be to do this task in the way that has previously been suggested: I'm certainly not happy about any proposal to put a password/key in a GUC var - that strikes me as a major footgun.

We didn't really have a better solution to the key management problem,
though, did we?  At least I don't see anything about it in that thread.

Yeah. Maybe we could have the GUC var contain the name of a key file rather than the key itself. If we require that the name be relative to the datadir that might be tolerably secure.

However, I definitely agree that a separate loadable PL is the way to go
for functionality of this sort.  There is no way that a dependency on
pgcrypto is going to be accepted into core, not even in the (ahem)
obfuscated way that it's presented here.


If we do anything in core it could be to make provision for an obfuscation/encryption hook via a loadable module. Various interesting encoding issues could arise with dumping and restoring transformed program text - I haven't thought that through yet.

But I agree a simple PL wrapper makes sense to start with, at any rate.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to