From: | me+postgres(at)kotovalexarian(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Load balancing of write queries among health-checked nodes |
Date: | 2024-10-08 03:41:00 |
Message-ID: | B49A2DD9-F3DC-4478-ADCD-834C8435CB9C@kotovalexarian.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Among PostgreSQL instances there is only one master. But yes, each server may be considered master by the clients because it's Pgpool-II will redirect write queries to the actual master. Maybe it's even better to avoid this unnecessary traffic between servers and decide which Pgpool-II is in front of the master on the client side, but this is optional.
Dnia 8 października 2024 07:30:05 GMT+04:00, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> napisał/a:
>On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 11:04 PM <me+postgres(at)kotovalexarian(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hello. I have a PostgreSQL high availability cluster with Pgpool-II, but I
>> don't use the virtual IP feature so my clients don't know which node to
>> send queries to. DNS round-robin is not a solution because it can't
>> distinguish between healthy and dead nodes.
>>
>> I thought about having a Pgpool-II instance on each client (client
>> Pgpool-II -> cluster Pgpool-II -> PostgreSQL), but AFAIK it can't
>> distribute write queries. I also know that libpq may have multiple nodes to
>> connect, but I need an advanced health check because a node may have
>> connectivity but be separated from the whole cluster so it must be
>> considered dead.
>>
>
>Isn't that multi-master clustering?
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cassandra Thrift | 2024-10-08 05:42:35 | pg_dump throwing segfault error during backup |
Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2024-10-08 03:30:05 | Re: Load balancing of write queries among health-checked nodes |