On 2/9/23 09:40, Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:51 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
<mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>> wrote:
On 2/9/23 08:16, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 5:05 PM Adrian Klaver
<adrian.kla...@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.kla...@aklaver.com>
The flip side of that is that with known ports it would it easier to
have a process on the Postgres machine or in the database that checks
the ports on regular basis. And as part of that process mark any non
responding ports as inactive. That would solve the zombie problem.
That's one possibility. But the "reaper" process could just as well scan
the service table,
and probe those too. So again, I'm not sure what the fixed-port approach
gains me, beside
perhaps the reaper not having to connect to PostgreSQL itself. I'm OK
with connecting.
As to fixed port and pulling vs services pushing, there is a security
side. Not sure who controls the external services, but there is the
chance that someone knowing they exist could inject their own version of
a service/server. With random ports that makes that easier as you would
not know what is canonical. With the pull process you have a
verified(presumably) list of servers and ports they listen on.
Thanks for the your input. Always good to have one's arguments
challenged by experts.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
