On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:48:00AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > Why pgpool should bother? pgpool supposes every transaction should go > through pgpool. Your example sounds like someone logs into M2 and tries > to shut down it. But because there's no enforcement of "every transaction should go through pgpool", it's not enough for the managers who are ultimately responsible for deciding on system design. In the hypothetical case, we're aiming at multimaster systems that are there for reliability, not performance. Decreasing the reliance on fault-tolerant hardware by increasing the potential for human error does not solve that problem. > I don't know what you kind of problem you are talking about, but... > > If you find problems, please post it to pgpool-general and let's solve > it. That's the open source way. We have been (my colleague Brad is the one who's been working on this). But for something to qualify for real production-grade use, it needs to be rock solid stable in heavy use for a considerable period of time. We're not there yet, is all I'm suggesting. (This principle is why it's also a good thing that Red Hat Enterprise isn't always completely up to date with the community sources.) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is above all style through which power defers to reason. --J. Robert Oppenheimer ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
