Skip to content

Ignore service annotations #1478

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.

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

Closed
sdressler opened this issue May 3, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Ignore service annotations #1478

sdressler opened this issue May 3, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@sdressler
Copy link

  • Which image of the operator are you using?

registry.opensource.zalan.do/acid/postgres-operator:v1.6.2

  • Where do you run it - cloud or metal? Kubernetes or OpenShift?

AWS EC2 with Rancher 2.5.7

  • Are you running Postgres Operator in production?

No but planned.

  • Type of issue? [Bug report, question, feature request, etc.]

Question / Feature request

  • Details

I am running a test setup with 1 main and 1 replica. The overall setup worked fine, and the cluster is up and running. Occasionally, however, the cluster will re-sync and cuts connections to do so. I first thought it was caused by #1447 but then realized that Rancher caused the resync by adding a service annotation field.cattle.io/publicEndpoints. That is, I see messages like:

time="2021-05-03T11:28:20Z" level=info msg="reason: new service's annotations does not match the current one: Removed 'field.cattle.io/publicEndpoints'." cluster-name=default/magic-minimal-swarm64da-tpch-zwn
65w pkg=cluster

Since this is dynamically added, I cannot simply add it to custom_service_annotations (resp. I don't know whether it is possible to make this dynamic). So, is there a way currently to ignore certain annotations? If not, I'd be happy to make a PR given I get a pointer to the correct location.

@KingJ
Copy link

KingJ commented Jul 22, 2023

FYI, this has been implemented via #1823. The operator configuration now has a ignored_annotations parameter which accepts a list of annotations which the operator should ignore.

(#1823 was mentioned in the linked PR #1482, but didn't make it back to this issue - so I thought it best to mention here for anyone looking at this issue in the future!)

@FxKu
Copy link
Member

FxKu commented Aug 9, 2023

Thanks @KingJ for the pointers. I will close this issue then.

@FxKu FxKu closed this as completed Aug 9, 2023
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants