Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> 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