Re: HA Setup Review

From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>
To: akshay polji <akshay(dot)polji(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HA Setup Review
Date: 2024-04-30 16:38:34
Message-ID: C0889997-8DA2-479B-82D0-C8945A35FF7E@elevated-dev.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

> On Apr 30, 2024, at 10:29 AM, akshay polji <akshay(dot)polji(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> So do you think that even such a cluster with 3 node pgpool + postgresql (running on the same machine) Synchronous Replication (Any one out of the two replicas) would mean Primary DB will be at risk of degraded performance?

All cloud providers have downtime and outages. Maybe this is reliable enough for you, but just don't treat it as a guarantee. The point is: if a network glitch, or failure of a replica, can cascade to cause failure of primary, is that really HA?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message akshay polji 2024-04-30 17:08:48 Re: HA Setup Review
Previous Message akshay polji 2024-04-30 16:29:22 Re: HA Setup Review