| From: | "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Date: | 2008-08-05 08:03:51 |
| Message-ID: | 27F0AB17-68B2-4CE8-846D-F492DCA37D07@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg
On 5-Aug-08, at 12:15 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> There is one really bad consequence of the oversimplified failover
> design that Simon proposes, which is that clients might try to fail
> over
> for reasons other than a primary server failure. (Think network
> partition.) You really want any such behavior to be managed
> centrally,
> IMHO.
The alternative to a cwnrallu managed failover system is one based
on a quorum system. At first glance it seems to me that would fit our
use case better. But the point remains that we would be better off
adopting a complete system than trying to reinvent one.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-08-05 08:34:42 | Re: Automatic Client Failover |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-08-05 07:30:28 | Re: Reliability of CURRVAL in a RULE |