From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patroni vs pgpool II |
Date: | 2023-04-07 12:10:42 |
Message-ID: | 20230407.211042.1580544584598671975.t-ishii@sranhm.sra.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Scenario:
> S0 - Running Postgresql as primary, and also PgPool.
> S1 - Running Postgresql as secondary, and also PgPool.
> S2 - Running only PgPool. Has the VIP.
>
> There's no /need/ for Postgresql or PgPool on server 0 to shut down if
> it loses contact with S1 and S2, since they'll also notice that that
> S1 has disappeared. In that case, they'll vote S1 into degraded
> state, and promote S1 to be the Postgresql primary.
>
> A good question is what happens when S0 and S1 lose connection to S2
> (meaning that S2 loses connection to them, too). S0 and S1 then
> "should" vote that S0 take over the VIP. But, if S2 is still up and
> can connect to "the world", does it voluntarily decide to give up the
> VIP since it's all alone?
Yes, because S2 pgpool is not the leader anymore. In this case S2
voluntarily gives up VIP.
Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS LLC
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2023-04-07 12:16:04 | Re: Patroni vs pgpool II |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-04-07 11:31:45 | Re: "PANIC: could not open critical system index 2662" - twice |