On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:28 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > WAL encryption will follow as an additional feature.
>
> I don't think WAL encryption is an optional feature. You can argue
> about whether it's useful to encrypt the disk files in the first place
> given that there's no privilege boundary between the OS user and the
> database, but a lot of people seem to think it is and maybe they're
> right. However, who can justify encrypting only SOME of the disk
> files and not others? I mean, maybe you could justify not encryption
> the SLRU files on the grounds that they probably don't leak much in
> the way of interesting information, but the WAL files certainly do --
> your data is there, just as much as in the data files themselves.
>
Agreed.
> To be honest, I think there is a lot to like about the patches
> Cybertec has proposed. Those patches don't have all of the fancy
> key-management stuff that you are proposing here, but maybe that
> stuff, if we want it, could be added, rather than starting over from
> scratch. It seems to me that those patches get a lot of things right.
> In particular, it looked to me when I looked at them like they made a
> pretty determined effort to encrypt every byte that might go down to
> the disk. It seems to me that you if you want encryption, you want
> that.
>
Agreed. I think the patch lacks the key management stuff: 2-tier key
architecture and integration of postgres with key management systems.
I'd like to work together and can propose the patch of key management
stuff to the proposed patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center