| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Date: | 2008-08-05 10:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 200808051245.02387.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le mardi 05 août 2008, Markus Wanner a écrit :
> > (Think network partition.)
>
> Uh... well, yeah, of course the servers themselves need to exchange
> their state and make sure they only accept clients if they are up and
> running (as seen by the cluster). That's what the 'view' of a GCS is all
> about. Or STONITH, for that matter.
That's where I'm thinking that some -core smartness would makes this part
simpler, hence the confusion (sorry about that) on the thread.
If slave nodes were able to accept connection and redirect them to master, the
client wouldn't need to care about connecting to master or slave, just to
connect to a live node.
So the proposal for Automatic Client Failover becomes much more simpler.
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-08-05 10:46:49 | small improvement in buffread common |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-08-05 10:40:30 | Re: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |