On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 07:39:20PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jul-15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > My point is that doing encryption of only some data might actually make
> > the system slower due to the lookups, so I think we need to implement
> > all-cluster encryption and then see what the overhead is, and if there
> > are use-cases for not encrypting only some data.
>
> We can keep the keys in the relcache. It doesn't have to be slow. It
> is certainly slower to have to encrypt *all* data, which can be
> massively larger than the sensitive portion of the database.
>
> If we need the keys for offline operation (where relcache is not
> reachable), we can keep pointers to the key files in the filesystem --
> for example for an encrypted table we would keep a new file, say
> <relfilenode>.key, which could be a symlink to the encrypted key file.
> The tool already has access to the key data, but the symlink lets it
> know *which* key to use; random onlookers cannot get the key data
> because the file is encrypted with the master key.
>
> Any table without the key file is assumed to be unencrypted.
The relcache and symlinks is an interesting idea. Are we still
encrypting all of WAL? If so, the savings is only on heap/index file
writes, and I just don't know much of a benefit skipping encryption will
be --- we can test it later.
--
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 +