16. Juni 2023 17:59, "Ron" <ronljohnso...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 6/16/23 10:54, Brainmue wrote: > >> 16. Juni 2023 17:41, "Ron" <ronljohnso...@gmail.com> schrieb: > > On 6/16/23 10:18, Laurenz Albe wrote: >> On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 14:49 +0000, Brainmue wrote: > > 16. Juni 2023 14:50, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> schrieb: >> On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 12:35 +0000, Brainmue wrote: >> >> We want to minimise dependencies between the application and the associated >> PostgreSQL DB. >> The idea is that the application gets its DB alias and this is then used as >> a connection string. >> This way we can decide in the backend on which server the PostgreSQL DB is >> running. >> There is an existing solution for that: the libpq connection service file: >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-pgservice.html >> >> If you want to manage the connection strings centrally, you can use LDAP >> lookup: >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-ldap.html > > Thank you, I already know this solution, but the LDAP solution is out of the > question for us and > the file again means an intervention on the client. And that's exactly what > we don't want. >> Okay. >> >> Then why don't you go with your original solution, but use a unique TCP port >> number >> for each database? There are enough port numbers available. That way, there >> is no >> collision and no need for a proxy to map port numbers. > > In practice, that gets very complicated is large organizations: every time > you add another > database, you must file another request with the CISO RISK office to get yet > another non-standard > port open from dozens of machines, and the network team implement them. > > Operationally much simpler to have a listener handle that. > > -- Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia. >> Hello Ron, >> >> I have to agree with you there as well. The workflow you have to go through >> is also often a time >> issue. >> There are many places that have to agree and then application owners still >> have to provide >> justifications. >> At the same time, we have to be flexible and fast and allocate the resources >> well at any time and >> provide the application with the maximum possible performance. > > There's always The Cloud... spinning up a new AWS RDS Postgresql is fast and > simple. (Costly, > though.) > > -- Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia. We know that too, but our data should/must currently remain in-house on our own hardware. That is why we need a solution at our company. Regards Michael
