| From: | Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using PostgreSQL for service discovery and health-check |
| Date: | 2023-02-09 17:40:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAFCRh-_mR=3T0ApqjjvCT6N9YYgSWsph2bGZqkGax2+8jhmoaw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:51 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2/9/23 08:16, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:05 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> The flip side of that is that with known ports it would it easier to
> have a process on the Postgres machine or in the database that checks
> the ports on regular basis. And as part of that process mark any non
> responding ports as inactive. That would solve the zombie problem.
>
That's one possibility. But the "reaper" process could just as well scan
the service table,
and probe those too. So again, I'm not sure what the fixed-port approach
gains me, beside
perhaps the reaper not having to connect to PostgreSQL itself. I'm OK with
connecting.
Thanks for the your input. Always good to have one's arguments challenged
by experts.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2023-02-09 17:46:41 | Re: Using PostgreSQL for service discovery and health-check |
| Previous Message | Dominique Devienne | 2023-02-09 17:35:42 | Re: WHERE col = ANY($1) extended to 2 or more columns? |