Skip to content

SCF-857: Skipping owner reference when enable_secret_deletion is false - #18

Open
adshin21 wants to merge 3 commits into
scalefield_v18from
scalefield_v18-SCF-857-secret-deletion-owner-references
Open

SCF-857: Skipping owner reference when enable_secret_deletion is false#18
adshin21 wants to merge 3 commits into
scalefield_v18from
scalefield_v18-SCF-857-secret-deletion-owner-references

Conversation

@adshin21

@adshin21 adshin21 commented Aug 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Upstream bug is reported here zalando#3162
Until then, let's include the fix in our code.

serdardalgic and others added 2 commits August 3, 2026 22:43
Kubernetes garbage-collects owner-referenced secrets as soon as the
owning Postgresql resource is deleted, regardless of the operator's
own EnableSecretsDeletion check in Delete() (which only guards the
operator's explicit deleteSecrets() call, not GC). This made
enable_secrets_deletion=false ineffective whenever
enable_owner_references was also enabled, since GC removed the
credential secrets anyway.

Now the generated secrets are not removed when
enable_owner_references: true, enable_secrets_deletion: false.
- refresh inline comment in generateSingleUserSecret
- extend enable_owner_references / enable_secrets_deletion docs in
  operator_parameters.md to describe the interaction
- add third exception in administrator.md "Owner References and Finalizers"

@serdardalgic serdardalgic left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thank you @adshin21

Comment thread docs/reference/operator_parameters.md Outdated
@coveralls

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Report for CI Build 31386934529

Warning

No base build found for commit e518daf on scalefield_v18.
Coverage changes can't be calculated without a base build.
If a base build is processing, this comment will update automatically when it completes.

Coverage: 44.99%

Details

  • Patch coverage: 2 of 2 lines across 1 file are fully covered (100%).

Uncovered Changes

No uncovered changes found.

Coverage Regressions

Requires a base build to compare against. How to fix this →


Coverage Stats

Coverage Status
Relevant Lines: 15748
Covered Lines: 7085
Line Coverage: 44.99%
Coverage Strength: 16.43 hits per line

💛 - Coveralls

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.

3 participants