[Pgpool-hackers] [Pgpool-general] pgpool limitations

[Gurjeet Singh]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> > Can you please point to the CVS versions that I can look at to see if
> these
> > can be back patched.
>
> Here.
>
> http://lists.pgfoundry.org/pipermail/pgpool-committers/2011-May/001749.html
>
>
Thanks Tatsuo.

The patch is not terribly large, but it _does_ introduce a change to a
structure. Would it be possible to backpatch this to version 3.0.x.

That patch allows the  pgpool to stay online while a new backend is being
added to the pool. It still doesn't seem to fix the issue where pgpool
disconnects all clients when we want to safely remove a slave backend from
the pool; or did I overlook something.

IMHO, it should be possible to remove a slave backend and disconnect _only_
those clients which have active queries on the slave going down, while other
slaves are still connected and running their queries. I understand that in
Master/Slave configuration every incoming connection has outgoing connection
to a master and a slave, but it'd be great to allow clients to stay on while
an unrelated slave is being brought down manually.

Thanks,
-- 
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pgfoundry.org/pipermail/pgpool-hackers/attachments/20110801/02fceddb/attachment.html>