2009/7/13 Jaume Sabater <[email protected]> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:58 AM, J. Carlos Muro<[email protected]> wrote: > > > The meaning of "ready for production environments" somehow (or "some > much") > > depends on your requirements.. I don't want to go into deep discussion > with > > it as we will find no end. But, we can make the question in another > > direction: is you production environment ready for pgpool? > > Now that is something everyone reading this list should have in mind. > > When I was first asked to setup a prototype of a PostgreSQL cluster > for a customer, first thing I asked was "what type of usage are you > doing to do from it". Reply was "mostly SELECT, few INSERT and > UPDATE". I forced them to reprogram a few stored procedures and a bit > of their business logic so that they didn't use NOW() functions, > SERIAL types, and similar. > > Result: awesome performance for a system where pgpool-II fits > perfectly (replication plus load balance). Does that mean pgpool-II > fits correctly/perfectly always? No, it does not.
Yes, that was my mistake: not to have instructed our developers at the beginning with the next link: http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/pgpool-II/doc/pgpool-en.html#restriction After (as in your case) some reprogram, it seems that we are ready for pgpool. I just need to test it a little bit more, though lately to be sure of pgpool's reliability, and a second step with the high availability of the pgpool daemon/server itself.. Greetings
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
