On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 16:08, Erik Jones wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:44, Erik Jones wrote: > > > >> Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> SNIP > >>> Guess he's never heard of pgpool, slony, mammoth replicator, cjdbc, or a > >>> half dozen other ways to get high reliability with postgresql. > >>> > >>> I wonder what version of postgresql he was testing. > >>> > >>> > >> Please, remove pgpool from your list of "reliable" postgresql tools. > >> It's decent, but child procs tend to go zombie from time to time. > >> > > > > No, I don't think I will. I've used it and tested it quite thoroughly, > > and have never had that happen. Bad hardware on your end maybe? Or an > > older version, or a bad compiler? > > > > I've found it to be very stable and reliable. If you've got a > > reproduceable test case I'm sure Tatsuo (sp) would love to see it. > > > pgpool -h reports v. 3.1. Note that this is pgpool-I and that the > release notes for the version we have say that an issue with procs dying > was fixed -- while it is certainly much better than it was in version > previous to 3.1, we have seen it happen on occasion. Test case? Hah. > This tends to happen during off hours on our high-load web servers so > the best we can do is keep an eye on things and restart when we catch > it. I see that pgpool-II has been released and since been integrated > with heartbeat which definitely sounds promising. I'm going to show it > to our deciders... Hmmm. I wonder if there's a difference in the kernels or threading libs or what not between you and I. All my testing was done on RHEL3 and FC2, and honestly, beating the crap out of it, it never died once. hmmm.
