Re: Patroni vs pgpool II

From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: inzamam(dot)shafiq(at)hotmail(dot)com, cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patroni vs pgpool II
Date: 2023-04-06 15:41:58
Message-ID: 20230406174158.62c47a30@karst
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 16:50:15 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

> > But, I heard PgPool is still affected by Split brain syndrome.
>
> Can you elaborate more? If more than 3 pgpool watchdog nodes (the
> number of nodes must be odd) are configured, a split brain can be
> avoided.

Split brain is a hard situation to avoid. I suppose OP is talking about
PostgreSQL split brain situation. I'm not sure how PgPool's watchdog would
avoid that.

To avoid split brain, you need to implement a combinaison of quorum and
(self-)fencing.

Patroni quorum is in the DCS's hands. Patroni's self-fencing can be achieved
with the (hardware) watchdog. You can also implement node fencing through the
"pre_promote" script to fence the old primary node before promoting the new one.

If you need HA with a high level of anti-split-brain security, you'll not be
able to avoid some sort of fencing, no matter what.

Good luck.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Evgeny Morozov 2023-04-06 16:41:56 "PANIC: could not open critical system index 2662" - twice
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2023-04-06 14:34:30 Re: R: Proposal: Shared Work Mem Area