Message-ID: <84d7a264fb5ad46873f6e40e10c3ee92983c55ca.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, Robert Haas
	 <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jing Wang <jingwangian@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers
	 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
	 <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 18:56:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <28777.1542386147@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: 
	<CAF3+xM+8-ztOkaV9gHiJ3wfgENTq97QcjXQt+rbFQ6F7oNzt9A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJrrPGfzSD4kmedadcDx+3vckj_kJ_jAuufgi+NsemTkWSU5Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1530710078.2411.29.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CA+TgmobfBaNaMrT5Qx+nQ=JKYYy-VOZ2xxXAhAGUSSWZ=fkm4g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJrrPGea1hX5HmZyVzhJ3HbT8x3+2zoNp48HhPVFzQUYy5PU_w@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJrrPGcMq9YgG-aMzLK051EndUgjdnpp8_dJwJaNDZbu=sS0qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAJrrPGcwt0LLLzDF9c3-zWrESJCJko-HovDOrMobkaWQaJ5YUw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67be09458f276c0c95a4b2a2a383dca9775d19cd.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <26890.1542047012@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <096a642cff0dd68b8157a5f8838e1762d0050d18.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <28777.1542386147@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: Cybertec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Tom Lane wrote:
> > As it is now, the patch doesn't keep two connections open.  It remembers
> > the index of the host of the first successful writable connection, but
> > closes the connection, and opens another one to that host if no read-only
> > host can be found.
> 
> Oh!  The reason I assumed it wasn't doing that is that such a behavior
> seems completely insane.  If the point is to keep down the load on your
> master server, then connecting only to immediately disconnect is not
> a friendly way to do that --- even without counting the fact that you
> might later come back and connect again.

That's why I had argued initially to keep the session open, but you
seem to dislike that idea as well.

> If that's the best we can do, we should forget the whole feature and
> just recommend putting slave servers first in your hosts list when
> you want prefer-slave.

If you know which is which, certainly.
But in a setup with automated failover you cannot be certain which is which.
That's what the proposed feature targets.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe