Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:39:03 +0200
From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Cc: vijay patil <vijay.postgres@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Request for Feedback on PostgreSQL HA + Load Balancing
 Architecture
Message-ID: <20250723133903.55c00274@karst>
In-Reply-To: <93148226-72d5-4f5d-8c59-5ffedde7fe6b@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
References: <CAD5k+7wgFmO7V_ncFCHBOzO0d9H51O5aKDD+hcnrCbUgZomqiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<93148226-72d5-4f5d-8c59-5ffedde7fe6b@cloud.gatewaynet.com>
Organization: Dalibo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20250723133903.55c00274%40karst>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 12:13:26 +0100
Achilleas Mantzios <a.mantzios@cloud.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
=E2=80=A6
> Have you consider pgpool-ii ?=C2=A0 I know most support / service compani=
es=20
> push for patroni, and manually separating read / write traffic from=20
> within the app,

Indeed

> but I still find pgpool's query routing very nice.

Using Pgpool for HA is a no go in my opinion. Pgpool HA requires the
DBA/sysadmin to deal alone with the real high availability challenges. Pgpo=
ol
doesn't handle the HA complexity itself, it stays quite "naive". It require=
s the
sysadmin/DBA to mess with the complexity to keep the cluster safe from
corruption. In other word, implement the HA safety stack in bash yourself. =
This
is partly true for repmgr as well last time I checked.

Don't implement Patroni or Pacemaker yourself in a collection of "action
scripts" triggered by a naive HA stack. Some people tried, some clusters has
been corrupted.

Pgpool for routing and/or pooling is an acceptable solution. Of course, it =
comes
with its drawbacks and some inefficiences, that's why most support/service
companies avoid it when possible. But depending on the context, it could be=
 OK.

Regards,