[Pacemaker] Question about multiple instance_attributes

[Andrei Borzenkov]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Kazunori INOUE
<kazunori.inoue3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-04-10 15:09 GMT+09:00 Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Kazunori INOUE
>> <kazunori.inoue3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I defined multiple instance_attributes [*].
>>>  * http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html/Pacemaker_Explained/_using_rules_to_control_resource_options.html
>>> Although it expected that start_opt="-p 5441 ..." would be used on vm1
>>> and vm2, it wasn't so.
>>>
>>> # pacemakerd -F
>>> Pacemaker 1.1.12 (Build: 3e93bc1)
>>>
>>> # cibadmin -Q
>>>     <primitive id="prmPostgreSQLDB" class="ocf" provider="heartbeat"
>>> type="pgsql">
>>>       <instance_attributes id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes">
>>>         <rule score="3" boolean-op="or"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-rule">
>>>           <expression attribute="#uname" operation="eq" value="vm1"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-rule-expression"/>
>>>           <expression attribute="#uname" operation="eq" value="vm2"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-rule-expression-0"/>
>>>         </rule>
>>>         <nvpair name="start_opt" value="-p 5441 -h 192.168.201.140"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-start_opt"/>
>>>         <nvpair name="pgport" value="5441"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-pgport"/>
>>>       </instance_attributes>
>>>       <instance_attributes id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-0">
>>>         <nvpair name="start_opt" value="-p 5449 -h 192.168.201.140"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-0-start_opt"/>
>>>         <nvpair name="pgport" value="5449"
>>> id="prmPostgreSQLDB-instance_attributes-0-pgport"/>
>>>       (snip)
>>>
>>> # hostname
>>> vm1
>>> # ps -ax | grep postgres
>>> 28591 ?    S    0:00 /usr/pgsql-9.4/bin/postgres (snip) -p 5449 -h
>>> 192.168.201.140
>>>
>>> Is it a design that boolean-op of "rule" doesn't function?
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that your second rule is simply unconditionally applied
>> because it does not have any rules to evaluate.
>>
> That is, is 'boolean-op="or"' invalid?
>

That's not what I said. Your second rule does not have any expressions
(sorry, I meant that) so it is always applied unconditionally.