From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
Date: | 2015-09-08 13:29:12 |
Message-ID: | 180650928.2160095.1441718952355.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> It is annoying for less capable database to say they have high
> availability when that just involves having a client library that
> can connect to multiple hosts.
This sounds like the "But all the *other* kids are doing it!"
argument, which comes up often. We generally resist doing
something solely on that basis, so the rest of the email is really
what matters, I think, much as this does gall.
> Yes, we can do this in DNS, but that is all happening at a
> different layer.
More than that, there are technical reasons that can be a bad
solution. As just one example, the servers might well be in
different domains.
> Now, the counter-argument is that this is the wrong layer to do
> it, and we will end up adding tons of configurations variables to
> libpq to control this.
Yeah, we definitely *don't* want to implement some sort of failover
manager in every connector -- that way madness lies.
> We are clearly not adding this just because JDBC has it --- we
> are adding it because it allows for more complex server
> configurations.
I think what we need is a clear description of use cases where we
think this is the solution, and some clear boundaries to the scope
-- so it is also clear what kinds of problems this is *not*
intended to solve.
> Could this ability be more powerfully done with DNS or a
> connection pooler, yes, but not everyone wants that complexity.
> For me, this libpq change has a simple user API with a small
> amount of code change that give us a simple solution to a common
> problem.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have something like this; but we need a
clear definition of that common problem we are solving. I don't
think I've seen that yet. I've seen various spins on solutions
described, from which I can infer various possible problems; but to
pick the best version of this as *the* solution I think we need a
clear statement of the problem itself.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Wagner | 2015-09-08 13:44:02 | patch for geqo tweaks |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-09-08 13:17:46 | Re: New functions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-08 22:21:02 | Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
Previous Message | Victor Wagner | 2015-09-08 04:29:32 | Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |