+1 on PostgreSQL so we can stop coding around Riak bugs. We can work out the logistics later, but there are definitely secure ways to do it.
-Zach On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:00 PM Gray, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > HashiCorp Vault and/or Consul is the only other primary contender I think > we've had proposed, but I'm +1/+1 as well. > > Jonathan G > > On 12/7/20, 3:58 PM, "Rawlin Peters" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I agree with the plugin interface as well, but that is what I was > hoping to defer to a follow-up thread, preferably with a rough draft > of a blueprint in hand. First, I just want to get an official > consensus on PostgreSQL (in this case as the _main_ plugin > implementation). > > - Rawlin > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:24 PM Robert O Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 and +1 to what @neuman said. I'd vote this be framed more like > "change > > TO secret store to a Plugin interface, and ATC will provide a > Postgres > > Plugin." > > > > I'd also like to note, I believe our company has a legal requirement > to > > have a separate "secret" database, so the Postgres secret store > needs to at > > least have the ability to be a separate DB URL+auth than the primary > TO > > Postgres DB. > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:13 PM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I am +1 for using Postgres, however we should consider > implementing the > > > "secret store" functionality in such a way that people can choose > to > > > implement whatever backend they want. I think it can be > accomplished using > > > the TO plugin functionality but I am sure people more familiar > with the > > > code these days would know better. This would also provide a > built in way > > > to migrate from one to the other without forcing everyone to > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 1:48 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > I hope by now everyone can agree that we need to replace Riak > (it's > > > > been unmaintained for quite some time now). However, we might > not all > > > > agree yet on what it should be replaced with (at least not > > > > officially). We've discussed it in threads here and there, but > I'd > > > > like to get some official consensus before we really hit the > ground > > > > running. > > > > > > > > I would like to propose that we replace Riak with PostgreSQL. > > > > > > > > Here are some of the reasons that I can think of (and have been > > > > mentioned by others in the past) for us to use PostgreSQL: > > > > - we all have much experience running it in production (because > we > > > > already run it for the Traffic Ops database) > > > > - it would simplify ATC deployments by removing one more > component > > > > from the system > > > > - it would simplify development as ATC devs are already familiar > with > > > > traditional SQL databases, and we could reuse a lot of the > existing > > > > code > > > > - it has a healthy community of support and doesn't seem to be > losing > > > > steam anytime soon (it still remains the 2nd most popular OSS > > > > relational database behind MySQL [1]) > > > > > > > > I would like this thread to focus on the merits (or lack > thereof) of > > > > using PostgreSQL as a replacement for Riak. We can discuss the > > > > low-level implementation details separately in the blueprint I > will > > > > propose as a follow-up to this discussion. Unless someone is > > > > vehemently -1 on using PostgreSQL to replace Riak, I will take > silence > > > > as assent and move forward with the blueprint process. > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > [1] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_osvsc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Xy7f_5hSaPy1VOI6G3s7dnOKEWWmrpYJK1noQ67A3gTlldrSM596Zx4YjjbMHFUITPk4$ > > > > > > > > >
