I have two separate docker-compose.yml files in two different folders:
~/front/docker-compose.yml
~/api/docker-compose.yml
How can I make sure that a container in front can send requests to a container in api?
I know that --default-gateway option can be set using docker run for an individual container, so that a specific IP address can be assigned to this container, but it seems that this option is not available when using docker-compose.
Currently I end up doing a docker inspect my_api_container_id and look at the gateway in the output. It works but the problem is that this IP is randomly attributed, so I can't rely on it.
Another form of this question might thus be:
Can I attribute a fixed IP address to a particular container using docker-compose?
But in the end what I'm looking after is:
How can two different docker-compose projects communicate with each other?
You just need to make sure that the containers you want to talk to each other are on the same network. Networks are a first-class docker construct, and not specific to compose.
# front/docker-compose.yml
version: '2'
services:
front:
...
networks:
- some-net
networks:
some-net:
driver: bridge
...
# api/docker-compose.yml
version: '2'
services:
api:
...
networks:
- front_some-net
networks:
front_some-net:
external: true
Note: Your app’s network is given a name based on the “project name”, which is based on the name of the directory it lives in, in this case a prefix front_ was added
They can then talk to each other using the service name. From front you can do ping api and vice versa.
UPDATE: As of compose file version 3.5:
This now works:
version: "3.5"
services:
proxy:
image: hello-world
ports:
- "80:80"
networks:
- proxynet
networks:
proxynet:
name: custom_network
docker-compose up -d will join a network called 'custom_network'. If it doesn't exist, it will be created!
root#ubuntu-s-1vcpu-1gb-tor1-01:~# docker-compose up -d
Creating network "custom_network" with the default driver
Creating root_proxy_1 ... done
Now, you can do this:
version: "2"
services:
web:
image: hello-world
networks:
- my-proxy-net
networks:
my-proxy-net:
external:
name: custom_network
This will create a container that will be on the external network.
I can't find any reference in the docs yet but it works!
Just a small adittion to #johnharris85's great answer,
when you are running a docker compose file, a "default" network is created
so you can just add it to the other compose file as an external network:
# front/docker-compose.yml
version: '2'
services:
front_service:
...
...
# api/docker-compose.yml
version: '2'
services:
api_service:
...
networks:
- front_default
networks:
front_default:
external: true
For me this approach was more suited because I did not own the first docker-compose file and wanted to communicate with it.
All containers from api can join the front default network with following config:
# api/docker-compose.yml
...
networks:
default:
external:
name: front_default
See docker compose guide: using a pre existing network (see at the bottom)
The previous posts information is correct, but it does not have details on how to link containers, which should be connected as "external_links".
Hope this example make more clear to you:
Suppose you have app1/docker-compose.yml, with two services (svc11 and svc12), and app2/docker-compose.yml with two more services (svc21 and svc22) and suppose you need to connect in a crossed fashion:
svc11 needs to connect to svc22's container
svc21 needs to connect to svc11's container.
So the configuration should be like this:
this is app1/docker-compose.yml:
version: '2'
services:
svc11:
container_name: container11
[..]
networks:
- default # this network
- app2_default # external network
external_links:
- container22:container22
[..]
svc12:
container_name: container12
[..]
networks:
default: # this network (app1)
driver: bridge
app2_default: # external network (app2)
external: true
this is app2/docker-compose.yml:
version: '2'
services:
svc21:
container_name: container21
[..]
networks:
- default # this network (app2)
- app1_default # external network (app1)
external_links:
- container11:container11
[..]
svc22:
container_name: container22
[..]
networks:
default: # this network (app2)
driver: bridge
app1_default: # external network (app1)
external: true
Everybody has explained really well, so I'll add the necessary code with just one simple explanation.
Use a network created outside of docker-compose (an "external" network) with docker-compose version 3.5+.
Further explanation can be found here.
First docker-compose.yml file should define network with name giveItANamePlease as follows.
networks:
my-network:
name: giveItANamePlease
driver: bridge
The services of first docker-compose.yml file can use network as follows:
networks:
- my-network
In second docker-compose file, we need to proxy the network by using the network name which we have used in first docker-compose file, which in this case is giveItANamePlease:
networks:
my-proxy-net:
external:
name: giveItANamePlease
And now you can use my-proxy-net in services of a second docker-compose.yml file as follows.
networks:
- my-proxy-net
Since Compose 1.18 (spec 3.5), you can just override the default network using your own custom name for all Compose YAML files you need. It is as simple as appending the following to them:
networks:
default:
name: my-app
The above assumes you have version set to 3.5 (or above if they don't deprecate it in 4+).
Other answers have pointed the same; this is a simplified summary.
UPDATE: As of docker-compose file version 3.5:
I came across a similar problem and I solved it by adding a small change in one of my docker-compose.yml project.
For instance, we have two API's scoring and ner. Scoring API needs to send a request to the ner API for processing the input request. In order to do that they both are supposed to share the same network.
Note: Every container has its own network which is automatically created at the time of running the app inside docker. For example ner API network will be created like ner_default and scoring API network will be named as scoring default. This solution will work for version: '3'.
As in the above scenario, my scoring API wants to communicate with ner API then I will add the following lines. This means Whenever I create the container for ner API then it automatically added to the scoring_default network.
networks:
default:
external:
name: scoring_default
ner/docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
ner:
container_name: "ner_api"
build: .
...
networks:
default:
external:
name: scoring_default
scoring/docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
api:
build: .
...
We can see this how the above containers are now a part of the same network called scoring_default using the command:
docker inspect scoring_default
{
"Name": "scoring_default",
....
"Containers": {
"14a6...28bf": {
"Name": "ner_api",
"EndpointID": "83b7...d6291",
"MacAddress": "0....",
"IPv4Address": "0.0....",
"IPv6Address": ""
},
"7b32...90d1": {
"Name": "scoring_api",
"EndpointID": "311...280d",
"MacAddress": "0.....3",
"IPv4Address": "1...0",
"IPv6Address": ""
},
...
}
You can add a .env file in all your projects containing COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME=somename.
COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME overrides the prefix used to name resources, as such all your projects will use somename_default as their network, making it possible for services to communicate with each other as they were in the same project.
NB: You'll get warnings for "orphaned" containers created from other projects.
So many answers!
First of all, avoid hyphens in entities names such as services and networks. They cause issues with name resolution.
Example: my-api won't work. myapi or api will work.
What worked for me is:
# api/docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
api:
container_name: api
...
ports:
- 8081:8080
networks:
- mynetwork
networks:
mynetwork:
name: mynetwork
and
# front/docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
front:
container_name: front
...
ports:
- 81:80
networks:
- mynetwork
networks:
mynetwork:
name: mynetwork
NOTE: I added ports to show how services can access each other, and how they are accessible from the host.
IMPORTANT: If you don't specify a network name, docker-compose will craft one for you. It uses the name of the folder the docker_compose.yml file is in. In this case: api_mynetwork and front_mynetwork. That will prevent communication between containers since they will by on different network, with very similar names.
Note that the network is defined exactly the same in both file, so you can start either service first and it will work. No need to specify which one is external, docker-compose will take care of managing that for you.
From the host
You can access either container using the published ports defined in docker-compose.yml.
You can access the Front container: curl http://localhost:81
You can access the API container: curl http://localhost:8081
From the API container
You can access the Front container using the original port, not the one you published in docker-compose.yml.
Example: curl http://front:80
From the Front container
You can access the API container using the original port, not the one you published in docker-compose.yml.
Example: curl http://api:8080
For using another docker-compose network you just do these(to share networks between docker-compose):
Run the first docker-compose project by up -d
Find the network name of the first docker-compose by: docker network ls(It contains the name of the root directory project)
Then use that name by this structure at below in the second docker-compose file.
second docker-compose.yml
version: '3'
services:
service-on-second-compose: # Define any names that you want.
.
.
.
networks:
- <put it here(the network name that comes from "docker network ls")>
networks:
- <put it here(the network name that comes from "docker network ls")>:
external: true
I would ensure all containers are docker-compose'd to the same network by composing them together at the same time, using:
docker compose --file ~/front/docker-compose.yml --file ~/api/docker-compose.yml up -d
If you are
trying to communicate between two containers from different docker-compose projects and don't want to use the same network (because let's say they would have PostgreSQL or Redis container on the same port and you would prefer to not changing these ports and not use it at the same network)
developing locally and want to imitate communication between two docker compose projects
running two docker-compose projects on localhost
developing especially Django apps or Django Rest Framework (drf) API and running app inside container on some exposed port
getting Connection refused while trying to communicate between two containers
And you want to
container api_a communicate to api_b (or vice versa) without the same "docker network"
(example below)
you can use "host" of the second container as IP of your computer and port that is mapped from inside Docker container. You can obtain IP of your computer with this script (from: Finding local IP addresses using Python's stdlib):
import socket
def get_ip():
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
try:
# doesn't even have to be reachable
s.connect(('10.255.255.255', 1))
IP = s.getsockname()[0]
except:
IP = '127.0.0.1'
finally:
s.close()
return IP
Example:
project_api_a/docker-compose.yml:
networks:
app-tier:
driver: bridge
services:
api:
container_name: api_a
image: api_a:latest
depends_on:
- postgresql
networks:
- app-tier
inside api_a container you are running Django app:
manage.py runserver 0.0.0.0:8000
and second docker-compose.yml from other project:
project_api_b/docker-compose-yml :
networks:
app-tier:
driver: bridge
services:
api:
container_name: api_b
image: api_b:latest
depends_on:
- postgresql
networks:
- app-tier
inside api_b container you are running Django app:
manage.py runserver 0.0.0.0:8001
And trying to connect from container api_a to api_b then URL of api_b container will be:
http://<get_ip_from_script_above>:8001/
It can be especially valuable if you are using even more than two(three or more) docker-compose projects and it's hard to provide common network for all of it - it's good workaround and solution
To connect two docker-compose you need a network and putting both docker-composes in that network,
you could create netwrok with docker network create name-of-network,
or you could simply put network declaration in networks option of docker-compose file and when you run docker-compose (docker-compose up) the network would be created automatically.
put the below lines in both docker-compose files
networks:
net-for-alpine:
name: test-db-net
Note: net-for-alpine is internal name of the network and it will be used inside of the docker-compose files and could be different,
test-db-net is external name of the network and must be same in two docker-compose files.
Assume we have docker-compose.db.yml and docker-compose.alpine.yml
docker-compose.apline.yml would be:
version: '3.8'
services:
alpine:
image: alpine:3.14
container_name: alpine
networks:
- net-for-alpine
# these two command keeps apline container running
stdin_open: true # docker run -i
tty: true # docker run -t
networks:
net-for-alpine:
name: test-db-net
docker-compose.db.yml would be:
version: '3.8'
services:
db:
image: postgres:13.4-alpine
container_name: psql
networks:
- net-for-db
networks:
net-for-db:
name: test-db-net
To test the network, go inside alpine container
docker exec -it alpine sh
then with following commands you could check the network
# if it returns 0 or see nothing as a result, network is established
nc -z psql (container name)
or
ping pgsql
I'm running multiple identical docker-compose.yml files in different directories, using .env files to make a slight difference. And use Nginx Proxy Manage to communicate with other services. here is my file:
make sure you have created a public network
docker network create nginx-proxy-man
/domain1.com/docker-compose.yml, /domain2.com/docker-compose.yml, ...
version: "3.9"
services:
webserver:
build:
context: ./bin/${PHPVERSION}
container_name: "${COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME}-${PHPVERSION}"
...
networks:
- default # network outside
- internal # network internal
database:
build:
context: "./bin/${DATABASE}"
container_name: "${COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME}-${DATABASE}"
...
networks:
- internal # network internal
networks:
default:
external: true
name: nginx-proxy-man
internal:
internal: true
.env file just change COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME
COMPOSE_PROJECT_NAME=domain1_com
.
.
.
PHPVERSION=php56
DATABASE=mysql57
webserver.container_name: domain1_com-php56 - will join the default network (name: nginx-proxy-man), previously created for Nginx Proxy Manager to be accessible from the outside.
Note: container_name is unique in the same network.
database.container_name: domain1_com-mysql57 - easier to distinguish
In the same docker-compose.yml, the services will connect to each other via the service name because of the same network domain1_com_internal. And to be more secure, set this network with the option internal: true
Note, if you don't explicitly specify networks for each service, but just use a common external network for both docker-compose.yml, then it's likely that domain1_com will use domain2_com's database.
Another option is just running up the first module with the 'docker-compose' check the ip related with the module, and connect the second module with the previous net like external, and pointing the internal ip
example
app1 - new-network created in the service lines, mark as external: true at the bottom
app2 - indicate the "new-network" created by app1 when goes up, mark as external: true at the bottom, and set in the config to connect, the ip that app1 have in this net.
With this, you should be able to talk with each other
*this way is just for local-test focus, in order to don't do an over complex configuration
** I know is very 'patch way' but works for me and I think is so simple some other can take advantage of this
Answer for Docker Compose '3' and up
By default Docker Compose uses a bridge network to provision inter-container communication. Read this article for more info about inter-container networking.
What matters for you, is that by default Docker Compose creates a hostname that equals the service name in the docker-compose.yml file. Consider the following docker-compose.yml:
version: '3.9'
services:
server:
image: node:16.9.0
container_name: server
tty: true
stdin_open: true
depends_on:
- mongo
command: bash
mongo:
image: mongo
environment:
MONGO_INITDB_DATABASE: my-database
When you run docker-compose up, Docker will create a default network and assigns the service name as hostname for both mongo and server.
You can now access the backend container via:
docker exec -it server bash
And now you can ping the mongo container using Dockers internal network (default on port 27017 in this case):
curl -v http://mongo:27017/my-database
That's it. The same applies for your setup.
I have had a similar example where I was working with separate docker-compose files working on a docker swarm with an overlay network to do that all I had to do is change the networks parameters as so:
first docker-compose.yaml
version: '3.9'
.
.
.
networks:
net:
driver: overlay
attachable: true
docker-compose -p app up
since I have specified the app name as app using -p the initial network will be app_net.
Now in order to run another docker-compose with multiple services that will use the same network you will need to set these as so:
second docker-compose.yaml
version: '3.9'
.
.
.
networks:
net-ref:
external: true
name: app_net
docker stack deploy -c docker-compose.yml mystack
No matter what name you give to the stack the network will not be affected and will always refer to the existing external network called app_net.
PS: It's important to make sure to check your docker-compose version.
version: '2'
services:
bot:
build: .
volumes:
- '.:/home/node'
- /home/node/node_modules
networks:
- my-rede
mem_limit: 100m
memswap_limit: 100m
cpu_quota: 25000
container_name: 236948199393329152_585042339404185600_bot
command: node index.js
environment:
NODE_ENV: production
networks:
my-rede:
external:
name: name_rede_externa
Follow up of JohnHarris answer, just adding some more details which may be useful to someone: Lets take two docker-compose file and connect them through networks:
1st foldername/docker-compose.yml:
version: '2'
services:
some-contr:
container_name: []
build: .
...
networks:
- somenet
ports:
- "8080:8080"
expose:
# Opens port 8080 on the container
- "8080"
environment:
PORT: 8080
tty: true
networks:
boomnet:
driver: bridge
2nd docker-compose.yml:
version: '2'
services:
pushapiserver:
container_name: [container_name]
build: .
command: "tail -f /dev/null"
volumes:
- ./:/[work_dir]
working_dir: /[work dir]
image: [name of image]
ports:
- "8060:8066"
environment:
PORT: 8066
tty: true
networks:
- foldername_somenet
networks:
foldername_somenet:
external: true
Now you can make api calls to one another services(b/w diff containers)like:
http://pushapiserver:8066/send_push call from some code in files for 1st docker-compose.yml
Two common mistakes (atleast i made them few times):
take note of [foldername] in which your docker-compose.yml file is present. Please see above in 2nd docker-compose.yml i have added foldername in network bc docker create network by [foldername]_[networkname]
Port: this one is very common. Please note i have used 8066 when trying to make connection i.e. http://pushapiserver:8066/... 8066 is port of docker container(2nd docker-compose.yml) so when trying to talk with different docker compose.
docker will use docker container port[8066] and not host machine mapped port
[8060]
I have testng project with selenium for integration testing of frontend app in vuejs and springboot backend. So in order to run tests I need first to bring up all dependent projects:
springboot and mongodb
vuejs frrontend app
Each project is in its own repo.
So I have created docker images of springboot and frontend app and will put it up in gitlab container registry.
Then in the testeng project plan to use docker-compose in .gitlab-ci.yml. Here is docker-compose.yml for testng project:
version: '3.7'
services:
frontendapp:
image: demo.app-frontend-selenium
container_name: frontend-app-selenium
depends_on:
- demoapi
ports:
- 8080:80
demoapi:
image: demo.app-backend-selenium
container_name: demo-api-selenium
depends_on:
- mongodb
environment:
- SPRING_PROFILES_ACTIVE=prod
- SCOUNT_API_ENDPOINTS_WEB_CORS_OPTIONS_ALLOWEDORIGINS=*
- SPRING_DATA_MONGODB_HOST=mongodb
- SPRING_DATA_MONGODB_DATABASE=demo-api-selenium
- KEYCLOAK_AUTH-SERVER-URL=https://my-keycloak-url/auth
ports:
- 8082:80
mongodb:
image: mongo:4-bionic
container_name: mongodb-selenium
environment:
MONGO_INITDB_DATABASE: demo-api-selenium
ports:
- 27017:27017
volumes:
- ./mongo-init.js:/docker-entrypoint-initdb.d/mongo-init.js:ro
After running docker-compose in gitlab-ci.yml what will be url of frontend app in order to execute tests?
When I do it locally I am using following urls for testing:
frontend app: http://localhost:8080
api: http://localhost:8082
But in case when running on gitlab ci what will be url to access frontend and api?
TL;DR instead of using localhost you need to use the hostname of your docker daemon (docker:dind) service. If you setup docker-in-docker for your GitLab job per usual setup, this is most likely docker.
So the urls you need to use according to your compose file are:
frontend app: http://docker:8080
api: http://docker:8082
my_job:
services:
- name: docker:dind
alias: docker # this is the hostname of the daemon
variables:
DOCKER_TLS_CERTDIR: ""
DOCKER_HOST: "tcp://docker:2375"
image: docker:stable
script:
- docker run -d -p 8000:80 strm/helloworld-http
- apk update && apk add curl # install curl and let server start
- curl http://docker:8000 # use the daemon to reach your containers
For a full explanation of this, read on.
Docker port mapping in Gitlab CI vs locally
How it works locally
Normally, when you use docker-compose locally on your system, you are typically running the docker daemon on your localhost (e.g. using docker desktop).
When you provide a port mapping like 8080:80 it means to publish port 8080 on the daemon host bound to port 80 in the container. When running locally, that means you can reach the container via localhost.
In GitLab
However, when you're running docker-in-docker on GitLab CI the important difference in this environment is that the docker daemon is remote. So, when you expose ports through the docker API, the ports are exposed on the docker daemon host not locally in your job container.
Hence, you must use the hostname of the docker daemon, not localhost, to reach your started containers.
Alternative solutions
An alternative to this would be to conduct your testing inside the same docker network that you create with your compose stack. That way, your testing is agnostic of where the docker environment lives and can, for example, leverage the service aliases in your compose file (like frontendapp, demoapi, etc) instead of relying on published ports.
For example, you may choose add a test container to your compose stack. Some testing libraries like Testcontainers can help set this up, too.
I am using docker-compose to spin up a spring api with a postgres database . I am new to docker and I am trying to persist my database using a named volume I created with
docker volume create employeedata
I add this volume inside my docker-compose.yml but the db does not persist if I stop or remove my containers .
version: '3.8'
services:
app:
container_name: springboot-postgresql
image: springboot-postgresql
build: ./
ports:
- "8080:8080"
depends_on:
- postgresqldb
postgresqldb:
image: postgres
ports:
- "5432:5432"
volumes:
- employeedata:/var/lib/postgresql/data
environment:
- POSTGRES_PASSWORD=postgres
- POSTGRES_USER=postgres
- POSTGRES_DB=employeedb
volumes:
employeedata:
I tried doing docker inspect employeedata and got the result below
It seems fishy to me that the docker-compose version is 2 and not 3 plus I don't understand how the mountpoint is related to the volume path I specify in my docker-compose.yml above
I would appreciate your help
docker compose created all objects in a project namespace. This namespace is usually the folder name of the docker-compose.yml file but you can set it by passing --project-name to (all) your calls to docker compose.
As docker does not have first class namespaces, the project name is simply used as a prefix for all objects defined in the compose file, so in this case, assuming your project was in a folder called "project" then compose would have created project_app as the container and project_employeedata as the volume.
To override this, you specify an explict container-name as you have done. But you really shouldn't as it means that any two deployments of compose files with this name will now conflict.
And to override it for volumes - tell docker compose that the volume is externally created and provide the external name. Otherwise compose will try to use the namespaced name.
volumes:
employeedata:
external: true
name: employeedata
Again, letting compose manage the volume name is probably the better option. Simply ensure the directory hosting the compose file has a unique name that is suitable - or ensure a suitable unique name is passed via --project-name, and then manage the volume using whatever_employeedata.
nb. Docker compose does not remove compose managed volumes unless -v / --volumes is passed to docker compose down so your data will persist here.
/var/lib/docker/volumes is simply the (default) location that docker will manage volumes.
The 2.0 refers to the version of compose, not the version in your compose.yml file.
Our application is behind traefik reverse proxy. We manage many subdomains and we use the watch-file ability of traefik to dynamically setup new subdomains to proxyfy.
So our application generate a traefik .yaml dynamic config file.
The same traefik will manage many instances of the same application.
For that purprose we need to indicate to traefik how to reach our application inside it own network.
We know we can use the simple hostname, the one which is the container name.
But this only work inside the default docker-compose network of the app instance and not the external network shared with traefik.
This one need the long hostname version so we are sure it reach the right application instance.
(<compose_name>_<container_name>_1 or depending docker-compose version (<compose_name>_<container_name>_1_<hash>)
Do you know a way to get the long version of the hostname of a docker-compose container inside another container of the same docker-compose default network ?
For better context, here a simple docker-compose.yaml file
version: "3"
services:
app:
image: app_image
networks:
- app_network
restart: unless-stopped
nginx:
image: nginx
links:
- app
networks:
- app_network
- traefik_traefik
restart: unless-stopped
networks:
traefik_traefik:
external: true
app_network:
driver: bridge
We want, from inside the app container, to get the nginx long hostname version, so we can use it to generate the dynamic configuration for traefik.
Thanks for your help.
We thought to have found a solution. Querying for the FQDN of the short-named hostname give the needed long hostname.
dig +short -x `dig +short nginx`
Return composename_app_1.composename.app_network.
In our python app we can get the same result with
import socket
socket.getfqdn('nginx')
I have a tomcat + postgres application that I test with docker-compose. I am trying to package the application in a kubernetes config file.
For now, I am running kubernetes (and kubectl) using my Docker Desktop for Windows installation. Eventually, I want to deploy to other environments.
I am currently trying to replicate some of the volume functionality in docker-compose within the following config file.
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
name: pg-pod
spec:
volumes:
- name: "pgdata-vol"
#emptyDir: {}
hostPath:
path: /c/temp/vols/pgdata
containers:
- image: postgres
name: db
ports:
- containerPort: 5432
name: http
protocol: TCP
volumeMounts:
- mountPath: "/pgdata"
name: "pgdata-vol"
env:
- name: PGDATA
value: /pgdata
When postgres launches, I get see the following error.
fixing permissions on existing directory /pgdata ... ok
creating subdirectories ... ok
selecting default max_connections ... 20
selecting default shared_buffers ... 400kB
selecting dynamic shared memory implementation ... posix
creating configuration files ... ok
2019-07-26 20:43:41.844 UTC [78] FATAL: data directory "/pgdata" has wrong ownership
2019-07-26 20:43:41.844 UTC [78] HINT: The server must be started by the user that owns the data directory.
child process exited with exit code 1
initdb: removing contents of data directory "/pgdata"
running bootstrap script ...
I presume that I either need to provide some additional parameters to my volume definition or I need to try a different type of volume config (local vs hostPath).
I found a partial solution to this issue.
Interestingly, if I assign a linux-style path as my host-path (on Windows), then my pgdata-vol persists until Docker Desktop is restarted.
Instead of mounting to a real windows location
volumes:
- name: "pgdata-vol"
hostPath:
path: /c/temp/vols/pgdata
I use a "linux" location as my Windows hostPath
volumes:
- name: "pgdata-vol"
hostPath:
path: /tmp/vols/pgdata
Curiously, I cannot actually find this path from Windows. I presume this /tmp is local to my Docker Desktop instance.
This solution does not offer true persistence, but it has helped me to work around a roadblock that was impacting testing.
This is a known issue with Docker image on Windows. Right now it is not possible to correctly mount Windows directories as volumes. You may however try to workaround it by using a persistent Docker volume. For example:
db:
image: postgres
environment:
- POSTGRES_USER=<user>
- POSTGRES_PASSWORD=<pass>
- POSTGRES_DB=<db_name>
ports:
- <ports>
volumes:
- pgdata:<path>
networks:
- <network>
volumes:
pgdata:
More Information:
data directory "/var/lib/postgresql/data" has wrong ownership
postgresql-data-pgdata-has-wrong-ownership
postgres-to-work-on-persistent-windows-mount
Please let me know if that helped.
Have you tried using WSL? My setup for windows is WSL + Ubuntu + Docker for windows and I can mount volumes normally.
I've followed that tutorial to configure all my environment:
https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/setting-up-docker-for-windows-and-wsl-to-work-flawlessly