| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guido Neitzer <guido(dot)neitzer(at)pharmaline(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving Availability |
| Date: | 2005-12-14 16:29:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1134577747.3587.130.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 10:19, Guido Neitzer wrote:
> On 14.12.2005, at 16:46 Uhr, Richard Huxton wrote:
>
> > I'd be tempted to look at pgpool sitting between your application
> > and the database, and then replication from the one machine to the
> > other.
>
> Right, I thought the same, BUT: I have two application servers (one
> on each machine) connecting to a network URL via JDBC. When pgpool is
> involved, I assume it only runs on one server, right?
>
> Or can I have pgpool running on both servers, each knowing about the
> two servers and the applications just connect to "localhost"?
If you are using as a read load balancer, with slony doing the
replication, it can really only be in one place. But, if you were
running it in replication mode, without slony in the background, I'd
think that setup could work.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-12-14 16:30:55 | Re: Improving Availability |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-12-14 16:28:08 | Re: Improving Availability |