Sharing a DB user password among units of the app

[Stuart Bishop]

On 27 March 2014 15:33, Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> 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 <stuart.bishop at canonical.com>