Re: Could pgsql jdbc support pool reauthentication?

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
Cc: Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Could pgsql jdbc support pool reauthentication?
Date: 2017-11-16 13:10:03
Message-ID: CADK3HHK0F6FUUW0JiveXKo0=gGfBk5dbe+Qm0xGwehpV7AtAWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Did you actually submit a PR ? I can't see one with your name on it ?

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com

On 16 November 2017 at 07:31, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> Ok let me see if I can nudge someone
>
> On Nov 16, 2017 7:22 AM, "Achilleas Mantzios" <
> achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2017 12:15, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> just provide a PR for pgbouncer here https://github.com/pgboun
> cer/pgbouncer
>
> Had tried that as well. No reaction. IMHO for a project that is supposed
> to be so vital (like in "but if you have a pgbouncer in front of PostgreSQL
> (you should) and..." there should be more activity. I mean, not having
> pgbouncer is supposed to be bad, but OTOH making pgbouncer work in a
> (semi-)enterprise environment (LDAP/search_path based multi-tenancy) looks
> like a journey in the mid ocean.
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
> www.postgresintl.com
>
> On 16 November 2017 at 03:30, Achilleas Mantzios <
> achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> www.postgresintl.com
>>
>> On 31 October 2017 at 07:52, Achilleas Mantzios <
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Cramer
>>>
>>> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
>>> www.postgresintl.com
>>>
>>> On 31 October 2017 at 07:00, Achilleas Mantzios <
>>> 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)
>>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> Achilleas Mantzios
> IT DEV Lead
> IT DEPT
> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2017-11-16 13:39:00 Re: Error 'Received resultset tuples, but no field structure for them' on queries subsequent to an error
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2017-11-16 12:31:46 Re: Could pgsql jdbc support pool reauthentication?