[pgpool-general: 361] Re: Multiple pgpool servers failover

Ludwig Adam ludwig.adam at petafuel.de
Fri Apr 20 14:48:59 JST 2012

Dear Lou, why would you use multiple pgpool instances to control failover?

Perhaps it would be a solution to have one instance of pgpool to set to FAILOVER and the others to DISALLOW...?


Mobil gesendet.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Kamenov [kamenovl at defx.org]
Received: Freitag, 20 Apr. 2012, 3:54
To: Matt Wise [matt at nextdoor.com]
CC: pgpool-general at pgpool.net [pgpool-general at pgpool.net]
Subject: [pgpool-general: 360] Re: Multiple pgpool servers failover

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Matt Wise <matt at nextdoor.com> wrote:
> If DISALLOW_TO_FAILOVER is set and ..
>   a) one of the slaves fails: that slave is taken out of rotation until its
> back up
>   b) the master fails: all connections hang until the master is back, OR a
> new master is detected. pgpool goes into a loop looking for new masters.

I was thinking more about section B, my problem is essentially an
atomic fail-over,
where we are ensured that this is triggered only once.

I will give it a shot and post back my findings.

If anyone else has any ideas, please send them over ;)

pgpool-general mailing list
pgpool-general at pgpool.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20120420/5e30ec28/attachment.html>

More information about the pgpool-general mailing list