Please don't top-post on PostgreSQL mailing lists.
Andre Labuschagne wrote:
>>> The best databases on the planet do allow that - Mimer, Sybase and now I am finding Interbase as well.
> Nothing to do with encryption. This is what the databases mentioned allow you to do. Set a user name
> and password that only the owner of the database knows about. No super user can gain access to the
> database no matter where or how it is shipped. It is that simple - the user name and password must
> reside with the database and only that users name and password can access that database no matter
> where or how it is shipped. Mounting it onto another PG server must not make it accessible to the
> super user on that server. That is what I am talking about. The three databases I mentioned work
> exactly like that - I am sure there are others that do so as well. It is security 101.
Well, if somebody who has access to the files cannot get the contents,
that is by definition encryption, right? If the data files are not encrypted,
anybody who can read them can get at the data.
> If you can do that with PG I am all ears. I am really wanting to use PG but this single apparent
> deficiency is stopping me in my tracks.
Are you trying to find a working solution or just trying to tell us that
PostgreSQL stinks because it lacks your favourite feature?
For a seasoned old hand like you it should be a trifle to encrypt a backup
with GnuPG and send it like that. That way nobody but the intended recipient
can get at the data.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe