Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YfpLC-0002Mm-7k for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:44:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YfpLB-0001T4-Mu for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:44:21 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YfpLA-0001Sj-Jl for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:44:20 +0000 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YfpL6-0006I4-BO for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 12:44:19 +0000 Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([87.155.107.165]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MWRkA-1Yvpn53CtG-00Xe2I for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:44:13 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB713730 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:44:12 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-99.9 required=6.31 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vm-mailsrv.lan.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZKcViSKObB4 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:44:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neslonek.homeunix.org (vm-webapp-ext.dmz-lan.net [192.168.0.100]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E031B71F for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:44:09 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:44:09 +0200 From: Jan Lentfer To: Subject: Re: Maximum Availability Architecture(MAA) for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3f89a3e198877cffec4b544a9fc0e033@imap.lan.net> X-Sender: Jan.Lentfer@web.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.2 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:uoWN1TH5km0QJmyifvazda9xBjM25NQaAOtAB7bnb4BFEgLx10H 7m8HWosvqpQtzyA7XGmHTGvVhrZqzB54XYWOVr+eGFLFpZc5wIfRQaPN0xrcqfjPTam+LZ/ pCP2geCWPwHugiusXTUekBJvXUKrLnYIjJ1CZ8fAqZ8JIBUlxSLpNRpxgjETjyhrwVtWNNv WdxvShOiOIKolB5sjlXkQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org Am 2015-04-08 10:22, schrieb Wei Shan: > In the PostgreSQL world, what do you guys think would be the > equivalent? > > Attached is a diagram I have thought of. Clusters of pg-pool2 used to > load balance the connection in and for connection failover when a DB > crashes. Between master and slave, sync replication is being used for > zero-data-loss. Why do you need 3 pg-pool instances? 2 instances uses watchdog should be sufficient? And if you plan to use sync replication you need to plan for 3 PostgreSQL Servers (a 3rd one that the sync replication can fail-over to). Regards, Jan -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin