[DPE-4296] Fix secret label #472
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Henrique Neppel <marcelo.neppel@canonical.com>
dragomirp
approved these changes
May 7, 2024
taurus-forever
approved these changes
May 7, 2024
BON4
pushed a commit
to BON4/postgresql-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2024
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Henrique Neppel <marcelo.neppel@canonical.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue
When retrieving the app secret containing the operator’s user passwords in the promotion of a cluster in an async replication setup, the charm fails to try to get the secret labelled as
postgresql-k8s.appinstead ofdatabase-peers.postgresql-k8s.app.This happened after merging #447 to the main branch (which had some changes in the secret handling, which were not merged before to that PR branch).
Solution
Fix the secret label.
This is a quick fix. To improve it, it should be moved to a common
data_interfacesinterface.There is a revision in the
14/edge/async-replicationchannel with the change from this PR.