As Jonathan said, Hashicorp Vault on top of Consul replication handles this
well.
Not sure PostgreSQL is a secure replacement for an actual system designed to
store/serve secrets.
Bob
On 12/7/20, 4:25 PM, "Villa, Joseph" <joseph_vi...@comcast.com.INVALID> wrote:
Question.. If you’re replacing Riak with Postgresql and logical replication
doesn’t have a method touchless failover, don’t you leave Traffic Control open
to have a single point of failure?
On 12/7/20, 4:10 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_osvsc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!V5-XK-1VGFXUitQ0q1--84NBl9T9bbsX8TdT__z0s7RLcZEhpi5-xX0fBWbTd2Nhx6Xz$
> > > >
> > >
