On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, J. Carlos Muro wrote:
Hi, Marc!
2009/7/7 Marc G. Fournier <[email protected]>
Last time I tried, something got "out of sync", ended up breaking the
cluster and going to one DB until I had time to dive better into it,
with two brand new servers ... so, I'm going to make attempt two at
this ...
Be sure that both your nodes are a "hard copy" one of the other. For
example, use tar+gzip+cp or rsync in order to copy the whole pg-cluster
from one node to another.
I'm building this from scratch, actually ... two brand new 8.4.0 installs,
with any interaction with them going *through* pgpool ... there is nothing
local to the machine(s) that are touching them ...
load_balance_mode?
From the docs:
load_balance_mode:
When set to true, SELECT queries will be distributed to each backend for
load balance. Default is false.
So, if you want to load balance your selects do use it! :)
Right, but does that mean that the same SELECT will be run on each node
simultaneously, or only passed to one nodes? If the former, would kinds
defeat the point of 'load balancing', but if you read the docs, that is
what it implies :)
replication_stop_on_mismatch?
From the docs:
replication_stop_on_mismatch:
When set to true, pgpool-II degenerates the backends and keeps the service
only with the Master DB if data mismatch occurs. If false, pgpool-II just
terminates the query. Default is false.
But, if I'm doing replication / load balancing ... which is Master, which
is Slave? Therefore, which one gets degenerated? The Docs, again, do not
make this clear ...
AFAIU, we could say that if this option is enabled, then in case that pgpool
finds data mismatch between nodes, it will degenerate 'not master nodes', in
other words, it deactivates replication. It could be interesting for
production enviroments..
Well, considering that I'm running this as a backend to something that
will be *very* visible to the PostgreSQL community at large (ie. the
mailing lists), I'd rather would with facts vs "intersting for production
enviroments" ... your comment almost implies that pgpool isn't even ready
for production environments yet ... is that the case?
If pgpool-II is not ready for a production environment, please do let me
know ... what I'm trying to implement is something that will be visible to
the PostgreSQL community at large, and would hate to create a shadow
because I used something that wasn't production ready :(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [email protected] MSN . [email protected]
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
_______________________________________________
Pgpool-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
