Skip to content

Conversation

@jjfrench
Copy link
Member

@jjfrench jjfrench commented Jan 13, 2026

Description

  • adds a maintenance window to perform patches on pgbouncer instances

@jjfrench jjfrench marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2026 16:36
@jjfrench jjfrench requested a review from hrodmn January 14, 2026 16:36
Copy link
Collaborator

@hrodmn hrodmn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for adding this! My only request is to export the pgbouncer instance names from the pgstacinfra stacks so we can provide the full names as props instead of just the stage name.

Do you think any of this could/should be fed back into eoapi-cdk's pgbouncer infrastructure?

@jjfrench
Copy link
Member Author

Do you think any of this could/should be fed back into eoapi-cdk's pgbouncer infrastructure?

I think that it should in some sense, but looking at how we deploy the infrastructure it got a little messy when I was first defining it. I wouldn't want multiple maintenance windows/patch managers for our use case - one pgSTAC and one userSTAC but both are technically one environment. Do you think there's a way to define this infrastructure alongside the pgbouncer constructs without generating multiple maintenance windows/patch managers? or do you think I should add an optional default one that we wouldn't use in our case?

@hrodmn
Copy link
Collaborator

hrodmn commented Jan 14, 2026

Do you think there's a way to define this infrastructure alongside the pgbouncer constructs without generating multiple maintenance windows/patch managers? or do you think I should add an optional default one that we wouldn't use in our case?

I think it would make sense to add the capability to eoapi-cdk when pgbouncer is enabled since it shouldn't incur much cost (right?). I see why you would just want the one patch manager in this case, so maybe it would be nice to make it togglable.

Comment on lines +49 to +50
key: 'InstanceIds',
values: [...props.instanceIds],
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I swapped to using the instance Ids referenced in the eoapi-cdk changes, which seems cleaner - using the instance names would allow us to deploy stacks independent of this one if the names didn't change, but I think this is fine since our deployment stacks are tied together

@jjfrench jjfrench requested a review from hrodmn February 12, 2026 18:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants