16. Juni 2023 17:18, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb: > On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 14:49 +0000, Brainmue wrote: > >> 16. Juni 2023 14:50, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > Yours, > Laurenz Albe Thank you for dealing with our wishes. Because we are growing more and more and we have many databases in different networks. Therefore, we are looking for a solution that will make the firewall problem more manageable for the future. And currently I believe that managing one more service in automation would be the lesser of two evils for us. But that's exactly why we're looking for a service that does that at all. Regards Michael
