Re: Patroni vs pgpool II

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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