On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Nikolay Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
> What if I need more than 2 nodes placed on remote sides with a bit > unreliable links? > It will be good if for example node3 lost connection to rest part of pool, > applications that are using it on this site continue to work (as far as > there is nobody to failover to there) but not getting any requests from > node1 and node2 even after link is restored. After node synchronize their > changes with rest nodes in pool (possibly in manual way to avoid conflicts) > it becomes fully functional member again. > It's even acceptable to lost local changes at node3 - until link to it is > down, the rest nodes don't need it's data so we can just take info from any > server available. > I suppose we need pgpool to be installed on each remote node to do that, but > this will prevent us from using online restore (as directed in > documentation) > Is there anything to do with pgpool-II at all or I need another solution to > use? I am not sure that I understand what you are asking, but here you are some advice: - There is pgpoll-II and there is PostgreSQL. - There can be a number of pgpool-II instances in a master slave configuration. - There can be a number of PostgreSQL nodes behind pgpool-II. - When a node is lost/degenerated (e.g. link lost), the rest of the cluster should be working fine. - When the link to the currently active pgpool-II instance is lost, another should take its place (via Heartbeat or similar). - Automatic failback is, IMHO, a bad idea in this sort of setup. -- Jaume Sabater http://linuxsilo.net/ "Ubi sapientas ibi libertas" _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
