Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Operator support for AlloyDB #250

Open
hessjcg opened this issue Mar 7, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Operator support for AlloyDB #250

hessjcg opened this issue Mar 7, 2023 · 5 comments
Assignees
@hessjcg
Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@hessjcg
Copy link
Collaborator

hessjcg commented Mar 7, 2023

Allow users to use the AuthProxyWorkload to configure both Cloud SQL and AlloyDB proxy connections.
@hessjcg hessjcg added type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. labels Mar 7, 2023
@spstarr
Copy link

spstarr commented Mar 14, 2023 •
edited

We plan to use AlloyDB so this will be easier to handle connections

@enocom
Copy link
Member

enocom commented Aug 16, 2023

@spstarr have you considering connecting directly to AlloyDB? There's better support for SSL in AlloyDB and so the Proxy path isn't as useful in my opinion.

@spstarr
Copy link

spstarr commented Aug 16, 2023

Interesting, we are not using AlloyDB as of yet, but there are plans to in future.

@enocom enocom assigned enocom and unassigned hessjcg Nov 16, 2023
@enocom
Copy link
Member

enocom commented Nov 16, 2023

Thinking some more about this -- the Operator provides a service-mesh like way to access a database instance, which can be helpful in large environments.

@hessjcg hessjcg mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2024
Closed
@hessjcg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

hessjcg commented Feb 22, 2024

@adamstrawson has expressed interest in creating a similar operator for AlloyDB. See #453.

@enocom enocom changed the title Configure the AlloyDB Proxy (request) Operator support for AlloyDB Feb 22, 2024
hessjcg added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 22, 2024
@hessjcg
feat: AlloyDB support proof of concept. #250
5ac71db
@hessjcg hessjcg mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2024
Closed
@hessjcg hessjcg pinned this issue Mar 21, 2024
@enocom enocom assigned hessjcg and unassigned enocom May 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@hessjcg hessjcg

Labels
priority: p2 Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@enocom @spstarr @hessjcg