> Tatsuo, > > I'm confused by this warning: > > "If a second standby took over primary when the first standby has > already taken over too, you would get bogus data from the second > standby. We recommend not to plan this kind of configuration. " > > I thought that pgpoolII was designed to attempt failover on one node at > a time, starting with the lowest numerical node. Under what > circumstances would pgPool attempt to failover more than one node at a time?
No, pgpool always one node at a time(except in the case when using follow_masater_command). The particular portion of the document thinks about following scenario: 1) we have one primary node(A) and two standby nodes (B and C) 2) A goes down and B takes over primary. 3) However C still thinks that C's primary node is A. 4) B goes down. 5) C takes over primary. In this scenario, if any database updation happens between #2 and #4, C is missing the updation and has bogus data. To avoid this situation, you can use follow_master_command, which is new in 3.1. Currently there's few explanation how to use it in the docs. I'm going to write some tutorials how to use the new directive. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general