I was thinking of something that only exists at the pool level.
Every new version of your app has the potential to change behavior in a way that would affect the previous version if the connection was recycled during a progressive rollout.
But I don’t think I would want to create a real database user for every version of the app.
I suppose the connection pooler could map versioned users to the same real user, and use separate pools, but a dedicated UA field is probably better.
I was thinking of something that only exists at the pool level.
Every new version of your app has the potential to change behavior in a way that would affect the previous version if the connection was recycled during a progressive rollout.
But I don’t think I would want to create a real database user for every version of the app.
I suppose the connection pooler could map versioned users to the same real user, and use separate pools, but a dedicated UA field is probably better.
> But I don’t think I would want to create a real database user for every version of the app.
Why not? Database users are (usually) not expensive, and with groups you can give access to a group you just add the user to.
Adding this logic to the connection pooler seems more complicated.
Because it means connecting to the database to provision a new user on every deploy.
Also because it doesn’t really concern the database, it concerns the pooler.
Connection poolers already maintain multiple pools, it would not be complicated at all.