Jaume Sabater wrote: >> Oh, I was thinking in the possibility of active pgpools in all nodes. > That would result in replication problems and information mismatch. > pgpool-II is not, AFAIK, ready for active-active clusters, but for > active-pasive clusters. Of course, wait for Tatsuo's reply as he will > be the one to confirm my thoughts.
Actually, I've been perusing the list and I found a message from Tatsuo (03/08/2008 01:37 AM: Re: pgpool in production) that says: >2) If you are using two or more web servers to run web applications, > you could install pgpool on each web servers. With this, you could > avoid a single point of failure of pgpool. But I was inclined to believe that he was talking about PGPool in a connection pooling mode, not replication. In any case, if my layout is not doable with PgPool, I can settle for other layouts. I'm still in the "planning" stage :) Alex _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
