Hi Willy,
On 6 April 2018 at 11:14, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: >> I don't think we need a new config know. > > Just thinking, is the goal *not to have to* configure "resolve" on > server lines in this case, or to avoid having to pre-configure the > resolvers themselves when they're the same as the system's ? The latter is the goal. > If the former, that would mean always enabling DNS resolving at runtime > which doesn't sound like a good idea at all to me. If the latter, then > why not have a special directive in the resolvers section to indicate > that it should use resolv.conf instead ? That could avoid some surprizes > when you simply comment your all your resolvers and that suddenly the > behaviour changes. I'd even say that this directive could serve to > populate the resolvers section from resolv.conf (thus possibly several > resolvers) which will ensure the exclusivity between the two mechanisms. Yes, that's a good point. In fact, I don't see why the fallback has to be implicit. The confusion often arises because haproxy accepts a resolver configuration where no resolvers are configured. Maybe we should reject the configuration when a resolver is referred to in the servers lines, but no actual resolvers are configured (AND resolv.conf parsing is not enabled in future). Lukas
