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they could afford slightly outdated results.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
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 |