Re: Key management with tests

Dear All.

Thank you for all opinions and discussions regarding the KMS/TDE function.

First of all, to get to the point of this email,
I want to participate in anything I can do (review or development)
when TDE related development is in progress.
If there is a meeting related to it, I can't communicate because of my
poor English skills, but I would like to attend if it is only possible
to listen.

I didn't understand KMS and didn't participate in the direct
development, so I didn't comment on anything so far. Still, when TDE
development starts, I wanted to join in the discussion and meeting if
there was anything I could do.
However, since I have a complicated and insufficient English ability
to communicate in English, maybe I will rarely say anything in
meetings (voice and video meetings).
But I would like to attend the discussion if it is only possible to listen.

Also, if the wiki page and other mail threads related to TDE start,
I'll join in discussions if there is anything I can do.

Best regards.
Moon.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 10:23 PM Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Stephen, Bruce and Masahiko,
>
>>
>> > discussions so far and the point behind the design so that everyone
>> > can understand why this feature is designed in that way. To do that,
>> > it might be a good start to sort the wiki page since it has data
>> > encryption part, KMS, and ToDo mixed.
>>
>> I hope it's pretty clear that I'm also very much in support of both this
>> effort with the KMS and of TDE in general- TDE is specifically,
>> repeatedly, called out as a capability whose lack is blocking PG from
>> being able to be used for certain use-cases that it would otherwise be
>> well suited for, and that's really unfortunate.
>
>
> It is clear you are supportive.
>
> As you know, I share your point of view that PG adoption is suffering for certain use cases because it does not have
TDE.
>
>> I appreciate the recent discussion and reviews of the KMS in particular,
>> and of the patches which have been sent enabling TDE based on the KMS
>> patches.  Having them be relatively independent seems to be an ongoing
>> concern and perhaps we should figure out a way to more clearly put them
>> together.  That is- the KMS patches have been posted on one thread, and
>> TDE PoC patches which use the KMS patches have been on another thread,
>> leading some to not realize that there's already been TDE PoC work done
>> based on the KMS patches.  Seems like it might make sense to get one
>> patch set which goes all the way from the KMS and includes the TDE PoC,
>> even if they don't all go in at once.
>
>
> Sounds good, thanks Masahiko, let's see if we can get consensus on the approach for moving this forward see below.
>
>>
>>
>> together, as a few on this thread have voiced, but there's no doubt that
>> this is a large project and it's hard to see how we could possibly
>> commit all of it at once.
>
>
> I propose that we meet to discuss what approach we want to use to move TDE forward.  We then start a new thread with
aproposal on the approach and finalize it via community consensus. I will invite Bruce, Stephen and Masahiko to this
meeting.If anybody else would like to participate in this discussion and subsequently in the effort to get TDE in PG1x,
pleaselet me know. Assuming Bruce, Stephen and Masahiko are down for this, I (or a volunteer from this meeting) will
postthe proposal for how we move this patch forward in another thread. Hopefully, we can get consensus on that and
subsequentlyrestart the execution of delivering this feature. 
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Stephen
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas John Kincaid
>