| From: | Andrew Rose <andrew(dot)rose(at)metaswitch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Using TCP load-balancers for read-only connections |
| Date: | 2010-01-07 11:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | 366E5F2A62306A4783C60773E99A8D62804A318802@ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
As a PostgreSQL newbie, I've got a question about load-balancing/high-availability which isn't covered by Chapter 25 ("High Availability, Load Balancing and Replication") of the documentation. But first, some background.
Background
----------
I'm planning a distributed database deployment. The deployment will run across a small number of geographically remote sites. I'll use Slony-I for master-slave replication between all machines in the deployment. (The write rate is extremely low and the write latency for remote sites is acceptable.)
There will be 2 (or perhaps more if necessary) database nodes in each site, accessed by many clients. For read-only operations, clients will only access nodes in their local site only. (For write operations, they obviously have to go to the master.)
I want read-only operations to be tolerant of the loss of a single database node in the client's site.
Question
--------
Will a standard TCP load-balancer suffice, or do I *need* to use PgPool in raw mode (or some other equivalent)?
Many thanks,
Andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jasen Betts | 2010-01-07 11:59:18 | Re: Using a variable in sql in a function |
| Previous Message | John J. Urbaniak | 2010-01-07 11:13:49 | Re: Error on Vacuum? |