<div dir="auto"><div>Essentially I want two pgpool nodes active and able to proxy requests back to the backend databases. If one of the pgpool nodes goes down the consul health check will fail and that node will be removed from DNS. I'll be manually handling any failover requirements (promoting psql hosts, updating pgpool pool nodes, etc.).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As far as consul goes, I have a consul cluster elsewhere, these will just be agents installed on the local pgpool nodes that talk to the server nodes. </div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 13:52 Pierre Timmermans <<a href="mailto:ptim007@yahoo.com">ptim007@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_5104213003886202770ydpfbe291byahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div><div dir="ltr">I don't understand the set-up you propose</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Are you going to use pgpool to automate the failover of postgres ? If this is the case you cannot have pgpool in an active/active configuration, otherwise both pgpool would initiate the failover of postgres</div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Also don't you need 3 nodes anyway, to make a consul cluster ?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div><div class="m_5104213003886202770ydpfbe291bsignature">Pierre</div></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_5104213003886202770ydpa0b9019ayahoo_quoted_5678500270" class="m_5104213003886202770ydpa0b9019ayahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
On Thursday, August 8, 2019, 09:30:07 PM GMT+2, Matthew Tice <<a href="mailto:mjtice@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mjtice@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_5104213003886202770ydpa0b9019ayiv4979752008"><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div>I have a two node pgpool setup running v.4.0.5 on CentOS 7. I'm using a Consul (<a href="http://consul.io" rel="nofollow noreferrer" target="_blank">consul.io</a>) service health check to create a pgpool service. Going down this road I'm able to have two pgpool nodes available for use:</div><div><br></div><div>e.g. </div><div>host pgpool.service.consul<br>pgpool.service.consul has address 10.20.6.23<br></div><div>pgpool.service.consul has address 10.20.6.24<br></div><div><br></div><div>My question is, is this a bad idea? I figure that once a connection to pgpool is made by an application it's "pinned" to that node - meaning unless the application disconnects and reconnects it will be connected to that same host indefinitely.</div><div><br></div><div>Unless I'm missing something where client metadata is written to pgpool, I can't see a downside to this (which is why I'm asking for clarification/opinions). I was going to go down the watchdog road but in reading the documentation I need 3+ nodes, not just the two I have available.</div><div><br></div><div>Matt.</div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>pgpool-general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:pgpool-general@pgpool.net" rel="nofollow noreferrer" target="_blank">pgpool-general@pgpool.net</a><br><a href="http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general" rel="nofollow noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general</a><br></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>