Re: Could pgsql jdbc support pool reauthentication?

Hello again,

After looking at pgbouncer master branch, which supports PAM authentication and indirectly LDAP, I decided to give it a go. Also I had to do some minor patches to both the backend's GUC code, and
pgbouncer in order to respect search_path and make it usable with transaction_mode (which IMHO is the main benefit of using pgbouncer vs the competition) - + it is the best bet closest to
re-authentication, which postgresql does not support out of the box (and is fairly complicated to do so).
After all those (not so trivial) changes I tested pgbouncer with my app, and I got sort of promising results, but also had a few unexpected failures as well.
Sad thing is that neither pgbouncer's mailing list seems very active , despite having subscribed successfully it still fails to accept my emails, nor do I see the project at github very active, or any
announcement for a new release soon .

So I don't really know how to contact the pgbouncer community.

On 01/11/2017 14:55, Dave Cramer wrote:
> yes, and with a bit of work you should be able to port the changes over to the current pgbouncer
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com <mailto:davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com>
> www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>
>
> On 31 October 2017 at 07:52, Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com <mailto:achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2017 13:08, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Pivotal has a branch of pgbouncer that supports LDAP.
> Great news Dave, thanx, you mean this repo right ? : https://github.com/greenplum-db/pgbouncer <https://github.com/greenplum-db/pgbouncer>
>
>>
>> Dave Cramer
>>
>> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com <mailto:davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com>
>> www.postgresintl.com <http://www.postgresintl.com>
>>
>> On 31 October 2017 at 07:00, Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com <mailto:achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2017 12:56, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/10/17 10:08, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>>
>> Hello Vladimir, thanx
>>
>> On 31/10/2017 10:30, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>>
>> Achilleas>So if say we need 5 connections max for the most complex app to work, and we have 200 users, then at peak time, the total number of connections would have to be raised
>> to 1000.
>>
>> Pools can shrink, so you do not have to raise total number of connections to 1000 unless you truly expect 1000 concurrent connections.
>>
>> I know, but we still risk having our max_connections exceeded. And this is not scaleable.
>>
>>
>>     That's true, but if you have a pgbouncer in front of PostgreSQL (you should) and the connections are used wisely (i.e. they are returned as soon as they finish the job, they don't
>> sit idle) this is no longer a problem.
>>
>> That would be a blessing if pgbouncer supported LDAP .
>>
>>
>>
>>     Álvaro
>>
>>
>> --
>> Achilleas Mantzios
>> IT DEV Lead
>> IT DEPT
>> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org <mailto:pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Achilleas Mantzios
> IT DEV Lead
> IT DEPT
> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
>
>

--
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt