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

[Tatsuo Ishii]

> 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.

Because 3.0.x is a stable tree, our policy does not allow to backpatch
such a changes which will add new functionalities or introduce
structure changes.

> 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.

Your observation is correct and it was what I was trying to explain in
previous mails.

> 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.

That would be great and that has been on my personal TODO list for
while. I just don't have time to deal with it now.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp