Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
While these can be handled at higher level, for example, by setting up LDAP or as Hekki suggested, tricking DNS, the problem is that I don't have control of how the user connect to the server. They may not use LDAP. Solution like pgbouncer has advantages. User just get one ip/port and everything else happens automatically. Thanks, Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect From: li...@jwp.name Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:39 -0700 CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org To: ft...@hotmail.com On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:03 PM, feng tian wrote: Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. ISTM that this would be better handled at a higher-level. That is, given a server (127.0.0.10) that holds 127.0.0.11-14. Connect to that server and query for the correct target host. _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
Hi, John, The change will be on the libpq client side. I am not saying this is a general solution for the distributed transaction/scale out. However, in many cases, it is very useful. For example, in my case, I have about 100 departments each has it own database. The balance machine can just redirect to the right box according to database/user. The 4 boxes I have may not even get domain name or static IP. Another scenario, if I have some kind of replication set up, I can send transaction processing to master and analytic reporting query to slaves. Thanks, Feng feng tian wrote: Hi, I want to load balance a postgres server on 4 physical machines, say 127.0.0.11-14. I can set up a pgbouncer on 127.0.0.10 and connection pooling to my four boxes. However, the traffic from/to clients will go through an extra hop. Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. I am planning to write/submit a patch to do that. I wonder if there is similar effort in extending libpq protocol, or, if you have better ideas on how to achieve this. how do you plan on maintaining consistency, transactional integrity and atomicity of updates across these 4 machines? _ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccountocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
[HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
Hi, I want to load balance a postgres server on 4 physical machines, say 127.0.0.11-14. I can set up a pgbouncer on 127.0.0.10 and connection pooling to my four boxes. However, the traffic from/to clients will go through an extra hop. Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. I am planning to write/submit a patch to do that. I wonder if there is similar effort in extending libpq protocol, or, if you have better ideas on how to achieve this. Thank you, Feng _ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendarocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
feng tian wrote: Hi, I want to load balance a postgres server on 4 physical machines, say 127.0.0.11-14. I can set up a pgbouncer on 127.0.0.10 and connection pooling to my four boxes. However, the traffic from/to clients will go through an extra hop. Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. I am planning to write/submit a patch to do that. I wonder if there is similar effort in extending libpq protocol, or, if you have better ideas on how to achieve this. how do you plan on maintaining consistency, transactional integrity and atomicity of updates across these 4 machines? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:03 PM, feng tian wrote: Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. ISTM that this would be better handled at a higher-level. That is, given a server (127.0.0.10) that holds 127.0.0.11-14. Connect to that server and query for the correct target host. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] libpq connectoin redirect
feng tian wrote: Hi, I want to load balance a postgres server on 4 physical machines, say 127.0.0.11-14. I can set up a pgbouncer on 127.0.0.10 and connection pooling to my four boxes. However, the traffic from/to clients will go through an extra hop. Another way to do this, is to send the client an redirect message. When client connect to 127.0.0.10, instead of accepting the connection, it can reply to client telling it to reconnect to one of the server on 127.0.0.11-14. One common way to do that is to set up one DNS entry for those 4 IP addresses. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
