From: Cainzos Yvan <yvan.cainzos@bcv.ch>
To: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Containerizing PostgreSQL
Thread-Topic: Containerizing PostgreSQL
Thread-Index: Adrb/Ic789TAYASoRIWUuVcCsY/rVQ==
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 06:01:46 +0000
Message-ID: <61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214ce@bcv.ch>
Accept-Language: fr-CH, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_000_61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214cebcvch_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214ce%40bcv.ch>
Precedence: bulk

--_000_61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214cebcvch_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All,

What is your experience with containerizing PostgreSQL, particularly on Ope=
nShift?
I am looking to identify the advantages and disadvantages of this type of a=
rchitecture, mainly from an operational standpoint.
I am interested in preferred use cases and those to be avoided.
Thank you for sharing your experience.

Best regards.
Yvan Cainzos

--_000_61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214cebcvch_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
>
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#0563C1;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:#954F72;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3D"FR-CH" link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72">
<div class=3D"WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a name=3D"_GoBack"></a>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">What is your experience with co=
ntainerizing PostgreSQL, particularly on OpenShift?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">I am looking to identify the ad=
vantages and disadvantages of this type of architecture, mainly from an ope=
rational standpoint.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">I am interested in preferred us=
e cases and those to be avoided.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Thank you for sharing your expe=
rience. <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Best regards.</span><span lang=
=3D"EN-GB" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Yvan Cainzos</span><span lang=
=3D"EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--_000_61c36bcd640f421eae98cfdee06214cebcvch_--