| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Date: | 2008-08-04 23:13:17 |
| Message-ID: | 14564.1217891597@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, it's less simple, but you can already do this with pgPool on the
>> client machine.
> Yeah, but if you have tens or hundreds of clients, you wouldn't want
> to be installing/managing a pgpool on each.
Huh? The pgpool is on the server, not on the client side.
There is one really bad consequence of the oversimplified failover
design that Simon proposes, which is that clients might try to fail over
for reasons other than a primary server failure. (Think network
partition.) You really want any such behavior to be managed centrally,
IMHO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-08-04 23:32:45 | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-08-04 22:35:33 | Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence |