|
From: Koichi S. <ko...@in...> - 2012-01-06 00:21:50
|
Even juust ideas/proposals are very helpful. I'd like to learn more about your background. Regards; --- Koichi On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:14:37 +0100 Magorn <ma...@gm...> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Koichi Suzuki <koi...@gm...> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Running nodes while some of others don't work makes sense only for > > read only transaction. Update transaction in such situation will end > > up with inconsistent database state. This is basically why XC does > > not allow such situation. > > > > Please understand that node removal, which will be an issue beyond > > V1.0, should be done in consistent state, that is, all the node should > > be healthy at the removal operation. If any of them fails, we need > > backup to fail over such nodes by streaming replication or other > > means. > > > > This is what we are assuming. > > > > I welcome any other ideas and proposals of features. If it comes > > with a patch, this will accelerate the development. > > > > Regards; > > ---------- > > Koichi Suzuki > > > > > Hi, > Thank's all for your answers. > I understand your point of view and the postgres-xc situation. > Sorry, but i can help you to write some patch ;) my C is not "fluent" but > i'll continue to follow the evolution of postgress-xc. > Regards, > > -- > Magorn |