On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:34:26PM -0400, Rui DeSousa wrote: > With that logic then you should use flat files for encrypted data and > unencrypted data. It’s what was done many moons ago; and its unstructured > haphazard approach gave rise to RDBMS systems. > > You cannot say that encrypted data does not belong in a RDBMS system… that is > just false. Hell, I’ve stored blobs in a RDMBS system which could have easily > been stored in a different system if need be. It’s a design choice and what > fits the application and budget needs. > > Encrypting sensitive information and storing in the database is a valid use > case. It may be only a few columns that are encrypted or a complete document > (blob); there is no need to increase complexity just to move those columns out > of the database. I think the point is that it makes sense to store data encrypted in a database only if it is a payload on another piece of non-encrypted data. You can't easily index, restrict, or join encrypted data, so it doesn't have a huge value alone in a database. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 +
