[pgpool-general: 7858] Re: Rejecting database mutations without a quorum

Luca Maranzano liuk001 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 6 16:41:21 JST 2021

AFAIK clients must connect all to the pgpool process that has the Vip
I'm not sure what happens if clients connect directly to all the 3 pgpool
instances separately.
Someone else on the list can comment about that?

Il ven 5 nov 2021, 17:13 Emond Papegaaij <emond.papegaaij at gmail.com> ha

> Hi Luca,
> I'm aware our setup is somewhat atypical. The reason for this setup is
> that we ship our application as a virtual appliance that's supposed to be a
> single deployment. Running in a cluster means deploying the same appliance
> 3 times. Things like a VIP work very nicely in most situations, but for us
> its really not an option as the cluster setup is supposed to be an internal
> detail from the perspective of the customer.
> We are thinking about implementing a safeguard that monitors the local
> pgpool watchdog and shuts down the database, pgpool and the application in
> case it reports having lost the quorum. However, this requires additional
> monitoring, polling and it would be much more reliably if pgpool could
> initiate this itself.
> Best regards,
> Emond
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:53 PM Luca Maranzano <liuk001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> IMHO the application should not run on the same server of the database,
>> but in any case the application should connect to the VIP managed by the
>> pgpool cluster not to the local pgpool.
>> The case is anyway interesting because there is no way for the Primary
>> Postgres to kill itself (a la STONITH way) in case of network partition.
>> Regards,
>> Luca
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:26 PM Emond Papegaaij <emond.papegaaij at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> While running various cluster failover and recovery tests, we came
>>> across an issue that I would like to discuss here. These tests were
>>> performed in a setup with 3 nodes (for simplicity called node 1, 2 and 3).
>>> Each node runs a database, pgpool and an application instance. The
>>> application connects to the local pgpool, which in turn connects to all 3
>>> databases, sending all queries to the one that is currently primary.
>>> Suppose node 1 runs the primary database. When this node is disconnected
>>> from the other 2 nodes via a simulated network failure, the other nodes
>>> establish consensus to perform a failover and either node 2 or 3 is
>>> selected for the new primary. However, on node 1, the database remains
>>> writable and the application and pgpool running. If the application on this
>>> node is still reachable from the load balancer, it will continue to serve
>>> requests, resulting in a split brain and ultimately database corruption.
>>> For many of our customers this is unwanted behavior. They would rather
>>> see the service become unavailable than continue to operate in a split
>>> brain. I went through the available options on pgpool, but could not find
>>> an option that would help me here. I'm looking for a way to prevent pgpool
>>> from accessing its backends with its watchdog is not part of a quorum. Is
>>> this currently possible in pgpool? If not, is it worth considering adding a
>>> feature for this?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Emond Papegaaij
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pgpool-general mailing list
>>> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
>> _______________________________________________
> pgpool-general mailing list
> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pgpool.net/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20211106/9c594d6a/attachment.htm>

More information about the pgpool-general mailing list