Hi, Le 31/01/2011 01:02, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit : > Last weekend I have some time to review your patches. > > I think the basic design of the patches is good. > > - It seems the patch degenerates standbys even if not in streaming > replication mode. I don't think it's a good idea to do it in the > replication mode or raw mode. Not sure for slony mode.
Ok, I will fix that. This feature will only applied to streaming replication mode > - IMO we need finer control over which node should be > degenerated. Probably we should have a new flag for each > backend something like this: > > backend_option0 = opt_value where opt_value is one of: > > DEGENRATE_IF_NEEDED: degenrate whenever pgpool-II thinks > needed. This is same behavior of 3.0 or before. > > NEVER_DEGENRATE: never degerate this node. > > DEGENERATE_IF_NOT_PROMOTED: in the master/slave mode, degenrate the > if it's not chosen as NEVER_DEGENRATE: never degerate this nodethe > promoting node. > (I'm not sure this should apply to slony mode) Not sure that we really need all of that. In my opinion, we binary use or not use autorecovery of slaves. What's a reason where we could decide to not recover a particular slave ? > - myexit() should not be used in fork_follow_child. Will be fixed too. > BTW, why do you specify pgpool's IP address in your sample script? IMO > it's obvious that it is localhost. Yes, in most of the case this is localhost. I just run different PgPool cluster and then I have a central place where I run the administration commands. That's just for that :-) Regards, -- Gilles Darold http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
