Again, I'm fairly new to pgpool, so please take just about anyone's advice over mine but I believe you'll want to run pcp_detach_node for the node in question while you vacuum
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Nimesh Satam <[email protected]>wrote: > Glyn/Steven, > > > Thanks for your reply. > > What we are trying to do here is: when we are doing a database vacuum we > don't want any connections for the given node. It might be any of the nodes > in the replication. > > Over the weekend when we tried to change the weight of the backend-1 to 0 > and reload using the pgpool reload facility the node was still receiving > connections. Hence I am not sure if what I am trying to do is correct or > not. > > Can you tell me how I can achieve this? I just want to make sure that we do > not send any Select queries to a certain node for a certain period of time. > > Regards, > Nimesh. > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Steven Crandell < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> As far as I understand things, you would still be seeing >> inserts/updates/deletes on backend node 0 even if it is weighted to 0 >> because pgpool considers this node to be the master and therefore the only >> node capable of accepting new data. >> e.g. the weight of a node in a master/slave configuration only determines >> the number of selects being sent to slaves. >> >> I run a 3 node cluster with mammoth replicator replicating data from >> master to slaves and have set up pgpool with node 0 set to weight 0 and the >> other two slaves set to 0.5. >> >> My intention with this configuration is for the master to only ever >> receive INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statement and to have all SELECT statements >> sent to the two slaves in a 50%/50% split. Thereby, the cluster is able to >> scale up to the point where the number of writes exceed the capabilities of >> the master without wasting master system resources on reads. >> >> So far this setup seems to work but I must admit that this configuration >> does not seem to be clearly documented anywhere that I could find despite it >> being a fairly typical need for a 3rd party replication solutions. >> >> If my assumptions about this are wrong I hope someone with more experience >> in this area will pipe up. >> >> -s >> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Glyn Astill <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> > From: Nimesh Satam <[email protected]> >>> > Subject: [Pgpool-general] Help in pgpool loadbalancing >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Date: Sunday, 19 July, 2009, 4:04 PM >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Can anybody highlight how queries can be loadbalanced >>> > in pgpool? How does backend_weight0 means and what happens >>> > if the value for this parameter is set to '0'. >>> > >>> > I need to use this parameter in the given below way: >>> > >>> > >>> > Set backend_weight0 = 0 >>> > >>> > So as no queries go to the first node. But in our >>> > usage we do see queries coming to the node for whom the >>> > parameter is set to 0. We are using pgpool in master/slave >>> > mode, with no connection caching. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> If you do not want any queries to go through to the first node, why not >>> just remove it completely from the config? >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pgpool-general mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
