[pgpool-general: 2912] Re: pgpool 3.3 and watchdog

[Alexandru Cardaniuc]

Thing is I already have a cluster configured with 2 nodes and watchdog.
I use PostgreSQL 9.3 and Pgpool 3.3.3 and for the most part it seems to
be working well. But, I had one case recently where I did a failover
where I failed the master node, and pgpool properly identified the
master node as failed and detached it from the cluster (status 3 in
pcp_node_info), but didn't run the script to do the trigger on the slave
node for some reason. So, even though the traffic was properly
redirected to the new master (former slave), this new master (former
slave) was still in READ_ONLY mode. Can't find what would be an issue.
Is that a known issue? What should I be looking at?

Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Alexandru,
>
> I looked into pacemaker ++ and decided I didn't need take that route
> for my (only) 2 node setup . I've been hardening my 2 node pgpool,
> watchdog, floating ip master / slave setup . I plan on publishing my
> whole setup as a howto when done ( if my boss give me go) , I'll keep
> you posted.
>
> Be patient, this takes time, don't expect any howto on this until
> august / september, mabye even october ( got a big release due in
> sept. which I'm working hard to make sure our pgpool failover cluster
> may serve) .
>
> And please cc my mail directly when mailing me, since I filter all my
> mailinglist mail, and came over your post here by accident :)
>
> regards Joar Jegleim
>
>
> On 9 June 2014 21:45, Alexandru Cardaniuc <cardaniuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Joar,
>> Can you keep us in the loop on your research? That kind of setup
>> would be something interesting to consider if it increases the
>> robustness of the clustering solution.
>> Joar Jegleim <joar.jegleim at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Please forgive me, false alarm, it works now.
>>> When I was reproducing this to send you the logs it suddenly worked
>>> (?) . I suspect it's because I've disabled iptables since I was
>>> working with this last time.
>>> I've previously opened up heartbeat port 9694 and watchdog port
>>> 9000 between the 2 nodes (+ pgpool and postgres ports of course), I
>>> thought mabye that was enough . Mabye I will have to open up for
>>> the delegate ip as well, or mabye there are some more ports I will
>>> have to open up.
>>> Anyway, I will continue testing with no iptables, and figure this
>>> thing out when pgpool and postgres configuration / testing / tuning
>>> etc.. is done .
>>>
>>> As an other note I was looking into using pacemaker and all the
>>> cluster utilities that comes with CentOS yesterday, I wonder if
>>> anyone have any experience in using pacemaker + pgpool VS. simply
>>> using pgpool + watchdog and delegate ip .
>>> My first impression of pacemaker is that it seem pretty robust +
>>> mabye I should consider proper fencing of failed nodes . On the
>>> other side going down that route my setup becomes a whole lot more
>>> complex so I'm not sure yet which is better for my setup which most
>>> probably will consist of 2 nodes ( I'd have to disable cuorum and
>>> stuff ) .
>>> I will probably look into both solutions and try figure out what
>>> works best for us .
>>> Any input on this is much appreciated .
>> -- "Never let school interfere with your education." - Mark Twain
>> _______________________________________________ pgpool-general
>> mailing list pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general

-- 
"It's very well to be thrifty, but don't amass a hoard of regrets."
- Charles D'Orleans