On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 07:51:36PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but we have to have a plan on how to improve it. Why add a feature
that is hard to maintain, and hard to use.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 +