>> > The scenario I'm most interested in is this: >> > >> > 2 servers - a master and a hot standby. All writes are >> sent to master, reads are split between master and hot >> standby. >> > >> > 1) If the hot standby goes down, how do I redirect >> reads to the master? >> >> pgpool-II 3.0 will take care of this. >> >> > 2) If the master fails >> >,A (B ,A (B-how do I automatically >> promote the standby to master and send all reads/writes to >> the new master? >> >> This is covered by pgpool-II 3.0 as well. >> >> >,A (B ,A (B-what happens when the old >> master comes back up? Do I need to so anything to make it >> catches up to the new master? >> >> I recommend to use it a standby. Such a configuration is >> possible by >> using pgpool-II 3.0. >> -- > > Oh so I'd still need a proxy such as pgpool-II for HA setup? > I was thinking that with the new built-in replication in 9.0 there would be no need to use pgpool-II. PostgreSQL 9.0's replication still lacks automated failover/load balance/query dispatching(send read/write query to primary, send read query to standby). So if you need these, you would want to use pgpool-II or any other proxy solutions. > If pgpool is still necessary why not also use it for replication? What would be the advantages of using the 9.0's built-in replication as opposed to pgpool's replication? Each replication solution has its own merit/demerit. For example, if you need synchronous replication, pgpool-II is for you. If you are ok with async, PostgreSQL's replication is quite nice. So it depends on you. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
