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.albe@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.