Hi all,
When doing a failover, shoudn't pgpool-II keep the new master as the master from that point on? >From my experience, after the master database fails and the slave takes over as master, if pcp_recovery_node is used to recover the old master, pgpool-II is assumes the master is back (because pgpool seems to mainain its master at backend0). I think pgpool should attach any other database as an slave, therefore not assuming it is the master again if it's backend0. I'm tempted to stop pgpool-II, change its configuration file to swap backend values (backend0 with backend1 values and viceversa) and restart pgpool. This way, pgpool would work as I expect, but of course it's a hack. Is there a better idea around this? I'm using: pgpool-II 3.0.2 (CVS) and PostgreSQL 9.0.1, in a two-backend configuration. Thanks, -Daniel
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
