| From: | Sameer Kumar <sameer(dot)kumar(at)ashnik(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jayadevan M <maymala(dot)jayadevan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Master-slave failover question |
| Date: | 2014-01-08 07:21:05 |
| Message-ID: | CADp-Sm75p8Zgh5h3+b90icL=dR4qcAXH6WnGNJhDWPdCFoRtsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
CCin the community mailing list
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jayadevan M <maymala(dot)jayadevan(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> I am using pgpool with streaming replication option for PostgreSQL, with a
> failover command (shell script). 2 pgpool instances (with watchdog) on the
> database nodes. You were referring to split brain for pgpool instances or
> PostgreSQL instances?
>
>
>
> I was talking about split-brain for pgpool which cascades to respective
PostgreSQL instances i.e. pgpool would think that the other node is lost
and hence it assume itself as only available pgpool+DB node and hence
pgpool on slave will switchover to its on DB and pgpool on master will
consider slave to be lost. This can happen if there is a network
fluctuation between slave and master (can be avoided with redundant network
path/line between two servers).
I do not understand if you are using HA mode, how come you are not using
Virtual IP (you mentioned earlier).
Just curious - once pgpool switches to the slave, it will mark it as primary
> (I did not use virtual IPs.) So spli-brain scenarion will not happen,right?
Am I missing something here? or some mode of pgpool which I am not aware
of?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jayadevan | 2014-01-08 07:58:24 | Re: Master-slave failover question |
| Previous Message | Sameer Kumar | 2014-01-08 06:52:21 | Re: Master-slave failover question |