Thread: Maximum Availability Architecture(MAA) for PostgreSQL

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

I probably should have said WAL archiving, but this is the act of sending the WAL segments to a standby server. Technically, using synchronous streaming setup, this is not really required, but it's still a good insurance policy, especially if for whatever reason, the standby loses its connection to the primary. Also, synchronous streaming replication uses a walreceiver process to send transactions, one at a time, to the standby servers. This is not the act of shipping a WAL segment to that standby, but if you're still sending them to that standby, then when connectivity is restored, the standby can effectively catch back up to the primary. This is one of the major improvements in V9.4.x where the primary keeps track of the segments and you no longer have to guess how many to keep on your primary in the event of connectivity loss. In 9.3.x and below, you had tell PostgreSQL how long to hang onto WAL segments and guess correctly that this would be longer than any outage.

Hi Jay,

I totally agree with you that having a pair hot standbys will be good. What do you mean by "using WAL shipping in addition to WAL receivers"?According to the documentation, if I configure replication slot,  "the master does not remove WAL segments until they have been received by all standbys". In sync replication, if the standby is down, the transaction will not be able to commit. However, if we have a pair, as long as 1 of the hot standby is up, the transaction will still go through.

Hi Jan,

Technically, 2 instance of pg-pool will suffice. However, if we have to bring 1 instance down for maintenance, there's no standby if the master crashes.

Anyway, I do realise a tiny flaw in my design, pg-pool is not a active/active design. It means there's a wasted resource. At least my pair of hot standbys could serve read queries..

On 8 April 2015 at 20:44, Jan Lentfer <Jan.Lentfer@web.de> wrote:

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

--

Regards,
Ang Wei Shan