"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't really agree that wrapping pl/pgsql with encryptor/decryptor
> is a bad idea.
It's quite a good idea, because it has more than zero chance of
succeeding politically in the community.
The fundamental reason why preventing access to pg_proc.prosrc won't
happen is this: all the pain (and there will be plenty) will be
inflicted on people who get none of the benefit (because they don't give
a damn about hiding their own functions' code). The folks who want
function hiding can shout all they want, but as long as there is a very
sizable fraction of the community who flat out *don't* want it, it's
not going to get applied.
Encrypted function bodies avoid this problem because they inflict no
performance penalty, operational complexity, or client-code breakage
on people who don't use the feature. They are arguably also a better
solution because they can guard against more sorts of threats than
a column-hiding solution can.
I don't deny that the key-management problem is interesting, but it
seems soluble; moreover, the difficulties that people have pointed to
are nothing but an attempt to move the goalposts, because they
correspond to requirements that a column-hiding solution would never
meet at all.
So if you want something other than endless arguments to happen,
come up with a nice key-management design for encrypted function
bodies.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
