Re: Patroni vs pgpool II

From: Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
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 05:31:16
Message-ID: CAFh8B=m5dhaozOzGrduqw3jQ5ML8-sVtM6+P9Lc-Bu6rmHsNAQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 at 01:01, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if Patroni provides load balancing feature.
>

It depends on understanding of load-balancing:
- If we talk about load balancing read-only traffic across multiple
replicas - it is very easy to achieve with Patroni.
- If we talk about parsing all queries in order to figure out whether they
are read-write or read-only, then no.

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they could afford slightly outdated results.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.

Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-04-05 07:38:26 Re: Patroni vs pgpool II
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-04-04 23:00:58 Re: Patroni vs pgpool II