Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Oleg Bartunov
Subject Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Date
Msg-id CAF4Au4zXOPERAQcLbyMLrPA0mLegrUKMq3N5YuuGtc2GUsACyQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2015-08-19 09:41:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In fact, they'd still need to use DNS balancing for Postgres,
> because not everything connects with libpq (think JDBC for instance).

It already does support this though.

https://jdbc.postgresql.org/documentation/head/connect.html :

> Connection Fail-over
>
> To support simple connection fail-over it is possible to define multiple
> endpoints (host and port pairs) in the connection url separated by
> commas. The driver will try to once connect to each of them in order
> until the connection succeeds. If none succeed, a normal connection
> exception is thrown.
>
> The syntax for the connection url is:
>
> jdbc:postgresql://host1:port1,host2:port2/database

yes, I also wanted to show this, but you was quicker.
 


> So I think we ought to reject this proposal, full stop.  I see no
> reason to re-invent this wheel, and there are good reasons not to.

I don't really buy this argument. Allowing to connect to several
endpoints isn't exactly "new tech" either. A lot of database connectors
do support something very close to the above pgjdbc feature.


mysql, for example.
 

Greetings,

Andres Freund


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Make HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC more concurrent
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Implement failover on libpq connect level.