Re: new feature: LDAP database name resolution

From: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Albe Laurenz <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new feature: LDAP database name resolution
Date: 2006-02-22 01:50:17
Message-ID: 43FBC359.60306@pws.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Thanks to everybody who answered.
>
> Maybe it is really the best thing to use a tool like postgresql-relay or
> pgpool - I will investigate these.
> I'm not eager to reinvent the wheel.
>
> We have considered relocating DNS entries, but the problem is that a
> changed
> DNS entry takes long to propagate; in particular Windows has a caching
> problem there.

So even if you specify the TTL of the DNS records to be 60 seconds for
the front end labels you put on your servers, Windows will not refresh
after that period of time, even though it should?

[snip]

> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-02-22 01:53:03 Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-02-22 01:07:02 Re: streamlined standby procedure