Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Add dbreplica CNAME

Related T1234

Test Plan

$ bin/octocatalog-diff ... pergamon
Found host pergamon.softwareheritage.org
*** Running octocatalog-diff on host pergamon.softwareheritage.org
diff origin/production/pergamon.softwareheritage.org current/pergamon.softwareheritage.org
*******************************************
  File[/etc/bind/keys/local-update] =>
   parameters =>
     content =>
      [36m@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@[0m
       key local-update {
       	algorithm hmac-sha256;
      [31m-	secret "redacted";[0m
      [32m+	secret "redacted";[0m
       };
*******************************************
  File[/etc/bind/rndc.key] =>
   parameters =>
     content =>
      [36m@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@[0m
       key rndc-key {
       	algorithm hmac-md5;
      [31m-	secret "redacted";[0m
      [32m+	secret "redacted";[0m
       };
*******************************************
[0;32;49m+ Resource_record[dbreplica/CNAME] =>[0m
[0;32;49m   parameters =>[0m
[0;32;49m[0;32;49m      "data": "somerset.internal.softwareheritage.org"[0m[0m
[0;32;49m[0;32;49m      "keyfile": "/etc/bind/keys/local-update"[0m[0m
[0;32;49m[0;32;49m      "record": "dbreplica.internal.softwareheritage.org"[0m[0m
[0;32;49m[0;32;49m      "type": "CNAME"[0m[0m
*******************************************
*** End octocatalog-diff on pergamon.softwareheritage.org

Migrated from D1516 (view on Phabricator)

Merge request reports

Loading
Loading

Activity

Filter activity
  • Approvals
  • Assignees & reviewers
  • Comments (from bots)
  • Comments (from users)
  • Commits & branches
  • Edits
  • Labels
  • Lock status
  • Mentions
  • Merge request status
  • Tracking
  • I'm not convinced this is such a good idea; this machine is way more than a "db replica" server (it only has one replica, most its databases are actually primary) and I don't think DNS provides the appropriate granularity level to record this information.

    I think configuring pgbouncer to have transparent access to read-only/read-write databases would be more appropriate and flexible than doing dns hacks.

  • ! In !181 (closed), @olasd wrote: I'm not convinced this is such a good idea; this machine is way more than a "db replica" server (it only has one replica, most its databases are actually primary) and I don't think DNS provides the appropriate granularity level to record this information.

    Right, the machine does multiple things, but CNAMEs are not mutually exclusive.

    I think configuring pgbouncer to have transparent access to read-only/read-write databases would be more appropriate and flexible than doing dns hacks.

    Can we have both?

  • Branch diff to another branch

  • See T1234's amended description

  • Merge request was abandoned

Please register or sign in to reply
Loading