Le 17/11/2010 22:59, Jean-Paul Argudo a écrit : > Hi! > > Thanks Guillaume for such a quick feedback :) > > Guillaume Lelarge a écrit : >>> I assumed the "i" index in the loop could be used to find from node 0 to >>> nodecount... Hope this is always true ? >>> >> >> Yes, you're right. > > Cool :) I read quite all the code to find the info... And I assumed that. >
I tried the patch on my laptop and it works fine. > Next step is to add a new column about Read/Write or Read Only status of > the node. > > In Master/Slave mode it could be usefull to know who's the "master" (in > case of a failback(.sh) it will be old_node+1 so, at the first failover > it will be 0+1=1, the next will be 1+1=2, etc.. > > I *know* pgpool-II does only *assume* (am I right?) who's the master, > but doesn't *yet* know for sure the master is in R/W ... because its all > about the good execution of failback.sh (exit 0). If failback.sh > succeeds, then pgpool-II *assumes* the n+1 is the new master... > > (am I still right?) > > So for the moment the column "Read-Write status" will only be based on > what pgpool-II *assumes* to be... I think next step then is to be sure > that the master is in R/W :) > > This completes the reflexion on the thread on pgpool-general whose > subject is " Suggestion for Failover on Master/Slave Streaming > Replication"... > > Now, digging back into pgpool-II code ;) > AFAICT, the only way to make sure which one is the master is to call pg_is_in_recovery() PostgreSQL function on each living node. The first one to say no is the master. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
