On 27 March 2014 15:33, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/03/14 14:51, Stuart Bishop wrote: >> Correct. I think you are just fine with one relation per database and >> using the generated credentials, and using the granted roles to >> control database permissions. > > As a sanity test - would per-relation config be useful in this scenario?
I don't think it would help with Andreas' current situation, but it would be useful. Currently, you have the choice of using a database with a generated name (unique to the relation, so no sharing of data between services), a hard coded name in your client charm, or a name specified in your client charm's configuration. If instead you could set the database name when you add the relation, then the charm would not need the config item specifying the database name to use, nor the logic in its config-changed hook to cope with the user changing the database name after deployment. I personally don't see it as a high priority feature. It might be most useful for configuring extensions to the basic interface. For instance, the pgbouncer db interface could contain extra configuration options specifying connection pool sizes, connection timeouts etc. Currently, all this information for all relations needs to be smooshed into the pgbouncer service configuration. I imagine it would be nicer if it was configurable per-relation. -- Stuart Bishop <[email protected]> -- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
