Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:41:14 +0700
From: Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: load balancer and connection pooling combined
Message-ID: <YEW4+vjBJNl2FDPa@admin.sibptus.ru>
References: <YD9XjqV5tNptwQVq@admin.sibptus.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YD9XjqV5tNptwQVq@admin.sibptus.ru>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YEW4%2BvjBJNl2FDPa%40admin.sibptus.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Does such a thing not exist? Is Pgpool-II not good enough in your experience?

Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Based on your personal experience and industry best practices, what load
> balancer combined with connection pooler can you advise?
> 
> 1. I have good experience with pgpool, it's a great and robust
> connection pooler, but it cannot do load balancing and failover (or
> rather, it can do very rudimentary load balancing).
> 
> 2. I have limited experience with haproxy, it's great for load balancing
> and failover, but it's not a connection pooler, and its pgsql-check is
> not good enough, I guess you have to use an external check.
> 
> Is there the "one thing to rule them all" that does all of the above and
> is well-tested and reliable?
> 
> -- 
> Victor Sudakov VAS4-RIPE
> http://vas.tomsk.ru/
> 2:5005/49@fidonet
> 
> 

-- 
Victor Sudakov VAS4-RIPE
http://vas.tomsk.ru/
2:5005/49@fidonet