On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:23:39PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > I'm not trying to shut down discussion, I'm simply pointing out where > this feature will be helpful and where it won't be. If there's a way to > make it better and able to address an attack where the OS permission > system is bypassed, that'd be great, but I certainly don't know of any > way to do that and we don't want to claim that this feature will protect > against an attack vector that it won't. > > If the lack of that means you don't support the feature, that's > unfortunate as it seems to imply, to me at least, that we'll never have > any kind of encryption because there's no way for it to prevent attacks > where the OS permission system is able to be bypassed.
It means if we can't discuss the actual benefits that this feature brings, and doesn't bring, and how it will deal with future feature additions, then you are right we will never have it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@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 + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
