[pgpool-general: 1998] Re: Problem with watchdog...

[Jeff Frost]

On 08/05/13 14:07, Fernando Buzon wrote:
>
> FINAL:
> Like I said, all is working nice.
> And now I am with the 2 pgpools up and working again.
> The escaled pgpool is pgpool-01.
> I stop it with "killall -9 pgpool" and now wd_lifecheck worked fine on
> pgpool-02!
> I dont now what was the problem early, but now is working!
>

Maybe you fix some small issue in the config during your testing.

> log on pgpool-02:
> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_lifecheck: lifecheck failed 3
> times. pgpool 1 (10.0.0.21:5432 <http://10.0.0.21:5432>) seems not to be working
> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_escalation: escalated to master pgpool
> 2013-08-05 17:52:42 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_escalation:  escalated to
> delegate_IP holder
> 2013-08-05 17:52:52 LOG:   pid 11524: wd_lifecheck: lifecheck failed 3
> times. pgpool 1 (10.0.0.21:5432 <http://10.0.0.21:5432>) seems not to be working
>
> So rest only one problem, that is how to down delegate_ip from the pgpool-01?
> Because both servers is responding to delegate_ip.

Well, the reason it doesn't get removed on pgpool-01 is because the killall -9
kills the pgpool processes including the watchdog without any hope of them
running the ifconfig down command.

That said, you just need to run the ifconfig down command on pgpool-01.

I'm sure what you're trying to simulate is a crash, but I'm not sure killing
ALL the pgpool processes with -9 is a good simulation, because more likely
only one of the backends would crash.

Maybe one of the other folks on the list can suggest a better simulation for a
crashing pgpool service.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20130805/5ca1d3a5/attachment.html>