From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | inzamam(dot)shafiq(at)hotmail(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patroni vs pgpool II |
Date: | 2023-04-05 07:38:26 |
Message-ID: | 20230405.163826.1094418722086264919.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> BUT, even if there is a solution that parses queries to make a decision it
> I would not recommend anyone to use it unless all consequences are
> understood.
> Specifically, not every read-only query could be salefy sent to a replica,
> because they could be lagging behind the primary.
> Only application (developers) could decide whether for a specific query
> they could afford slightly outdated results. Most of the popular
> application frameworks support configuring two connection strings for this
> purpose.
I think Pgpool-II users well understand the effect of replication
lagging because I've never heard complains like "hey, why my query
result is sometimes outdated?"
Moreover Pgpool-II provides many load balancing features depending on
user's needs. For example users can:
- just turn off load balancing
- turn off load balancing only for specific application name
- turn off load balancing only for specific database
- turn off load balancing if current transaction includes write query
Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS LLC
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Inzamam Shafiq | 2023-04-05 07:41:18 | Re: Patroni vs pgpool II |
Previous Message | Alexander Kukushkin | 2023-04-05 05:31:16 | Re: Patroni vs pgpool II |