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
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).