[pgpool-general: 5397] Re: pgpool-II and JDBC pool

[Mephysto]

Ok,
thank you very much Tatsuo.

Bye.

Meph

On 27 March 2017 at 15:54, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> It looks Pgpool-II works as expected. From your pgpool.log, I found 38
> SELECTs were sent to DB node 0, while 70 SELECTs were sent to DB node
> 1.  Many of SELECTs sent to DB node 0 is "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
> pg_catalog.pg_roles" (33 out of 38), which will be always sent to DB
> node 0 since it is a query against the system catalog. In summary,
> most of user SELECTs were sent to DB node 1 according to the
> pgpool.log.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>
> > Hi Tatsuo,
> > as attachments of this email you can find logs and configuration file.
> >
> > Very kind regards.
> >
> >
> > Meph
> >
> > On 26 March 2017 at 04:38, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> > Hi there,
> >> > at the moment, I am using pgpool-II as load balancer in master-slave
> mode
> >> > with streaming replication with two postgres nodes. Pgpool is accessed
> >> by a
> >> > java server application that use a JDBC pool in Payara (a Glassfish
> fork)
> >> > application server.
> >> >
> >> > During startup phase, the application execute about 1800 queries that
> are
> >> > almost all readonly stored functions, but pgpool send queries almost
> >> > exclusively toward primary node. This is the situation after some
> tries:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > postgres at postgres=# show pool_nodes;
> >> >  node_id |        hostname         | port  | status | lb_weight |
> role
> >>  |
> >> > select_cnt | load_balance_node | replication_delay
> >> > ---------+-------------------------+-------+--------+-------
> >> > ----+---------+------------+-------------------+-------------------
> >> >  0       | citrix2.redevogames.com | 15004 | up     | 0.250000  |
> >> primary |
> >> > 9520       | true              | 0
> >> >  1       | 10.0.0.3                | 5997  | up     | 0.750000  |
> >> standby |
> >> > 10         | false             | 0
> >> >
> >> > The question now is: is it a good idea to use a JDBC pool to connect
> to
> >> > pgpgool or is it better without it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It can be other reason for this behavior of balancer?
> >>
> >> There may be something which could explain this (for example
> >> replication delay is too much). Can you show me the pgpool log, along
> >> with log_per_node_statement = on?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> --
> >> Tatsuo Ishii
> >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> >> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> >> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20170329/c3c18fad/attachment.html>