+1 as well On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:09 PM Derek Gelinas <mrdgeli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > On Dec 7, 2020, 5:58 PM -0500, Rawlin Peters <raw...@apache.org>, 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 <r...@apache.org> 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 <neu...@apache.org> 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 <raw...@apache.org> > 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://db-engines.com/en/ranking_osvsc > > > > > > > > > >
