Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe a better TODO would be to do this task in the way that has > previously been suggested: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00258.php > 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. 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. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster