<html><head><base href="x-msg://8062/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Ludwig,<div> The problem with that (and that was our original idea) DISALLOW does not function in the way we want. When DISALLOW is set, if any server in your pool of 4 DB servers goes down, access to all of them is hung. Worse yet, if the master changes from say DB1 to DB2 (and you bring DB1 back up as a slave of DB2), the non-controlling PGPool in DISALLOW mode will never notice.</div><div><br></div><div>—Matt</div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Ludwig Adam wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; color: black; "><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; color: black; ">Dear Lou, why would you use multiple pgpool instances to control failover?<br><br>Perhaps it would be a solution to have one instance of pgpool to set to FAILOVER and the others to DISALLOW...?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Ludwig<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Mobil gesendet.<br><br><span style="color: black; ">-----Original Message-----<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Lou Kamenov [<a href="mailto:kamenovl@defx.org">kamenovl@defx.org</a>]<br><b>Received:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Freitag, 20 Apr. 2012, 3:54<br><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Matt Wise [<a href="mailto:matt@nextdoor.com">matt@nextdoor.com</a>]<br><b>CC:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:pgpool-general@pgpool.net">pgpool-general@pgpool.net</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[<a href="mailto:pgpool-general@pgpool.net">pgpool-general@pgpool.net</a>]<br><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[pgpool-general: 360] Re: Multiple pgpool servers failover<br><br></span></span></div><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; "><div class="PlainText">On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Matt Wise <<a href="mailto:matt@nextdoor.com">matt@nextdoor.com</a>> wrote:<br>[..]<br>> If DISALLOW_TO_FAILOVER is set and ..<br>> a) one of the slaves fails: that slave is taken out of rotation until its<br>> back up<br>> b) the master fails: all connections hang until the master is back, OR a<br>> new master is detected. pgpool goes into a loop looking for new masters.<br><br>I was thinking more about section B, my problem is essentially an<br>atomic fail-over,<br>where we are ensured that this is triggered only once.<br><br>I will give it a shot and post back my findings.<br><br>If anyone else has any ideas, please send them over ;)<br><br>cheers,<br>Lou<br>_______________________________________________<br>pgpool-general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:pgpool-general@pgpool.net">pgpool-general@pgpool.net</a><br><a href="http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general">http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general</a><br></div></span></font></div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>