On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 3:43 AM Evgeny Kuzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm no DNS expert, but I can't shake the feeling that you're > > (mis)using round-robin A records to reimplement, say, SRV records > > Would reviving SRV support be a direction you'd consider architecturally > sound?
I'm, again, no DNS expert. But I think we'd be moving in the same direction as other cluster-aware software if we explored that approach, which feels reasonable to me. > Another thought - what about cluster-aware routing at the protocol level? A > standby could redirect to the primary - similar to HTTP 302. The cluster > knows its own topology, libpq stays fast and dumb about it. That would > preserve the "connect me as fast as possible" ability you mentioned. Though > that feels like a bigger architectural lift compared to SRV. I think there might be a good argument for having both. Topologies aren't static; ideally you want your client to navigate a failover successfully, but you probably don't want to *optimize* for constant failovers. --Jacob
