> The patch is not terribly large, but it _does_ introduce a change to a > structure. Would it be possible to backpatch this to version 3.0.x.
Because 3.0.x is a stable tree, our policy does not allow to backpatch such a changes which will add new functionalities or introduce structure changes. > That patch allows the pgpool to stay online while a new backend is being > added to the pool. It still doesn't seem to fix the issue where pgpool > disconnects all clients when we want to safely remove a slave backend from > the pool; or did I overlook something. Your observation is correct and it was what I was trying to explain in previous mails. > IMHO, it should be possible to remove a slave backend and disconnect _only_ > those clients which have active queries on the slave going down, while other > slaves are still connected and running their queries. I understand that in > Master/Slave configuration every incoming connection has outgoing connection > to a master and a slave, but it'd be great to allow clients to stay on while > an unrelated slave is being brought down manually. That would be great and that has been on my personal TODO list for while. I just don't have time to deal with it now. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list Pgpool-hackers@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
