Re: viewing source code
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: viewing source code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20377.1198191718@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: viewing source code ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: viewing source code
Re: viewing source code Re: viewing source code |
Список | pgsql-performance |
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > I don't really agree that wrapping pl/pgsql with encryptor/decryptor > is a bad idea. It's quite a good idea, because it has more than zero chance of succeeding politically in the community. The fundamental reason why preventing access to pg_proc.prosrc won't happen is this: all the pain (and there will be plenty) will be inflicted on people who get none of the benefit (because they don't give a damn about hiding their own functions' code). The folks who want function hiding can shout all they want, but as long as there is a very sizable fraction of the community who flat out *don't* want it, it's not going to get applied. Encrypted function bodies avoid this problem because they inflict no performance penalty, operational complexity, or client-code breakage on people who don't use the feature. They are arguably also a better solution because they can guard against more sorts of threats than a column-hiding solution can. I don't deny that the key-management problem is interesting, but it seems soluble; moreover, the difficulties that people have pointed to are nothing but an attempt to move the goalposts, because they correspond to requirements that a column-hiding solution would never meet at all. So if you want something other than endless arguments to happen, come up with a nice key-management design for encrypted function bodies. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: