Re: [Postgres-xc-general] ERROR: Failed to get pooled connections

[Andrei M. <and...@gm...>]

I feel like the discussion is senseless. Everything costs its price. If
your need HA you pay with performance. If you need both HA and performance
you pay for more powerful hardware.
XC is for those, who want more TPS per dollar, under the circumstances HA
is not a first priority definitely. If you know how to implement HA
solution that does not affect performance please tell us.
There are a lot of useful features (like ability to start when server
starts, schedule backups, failover to standby system) which are out of the
core. If you want any of these your need to set it up or have someone do
that for you. If you do not need them you can go without them pretty well.

2012/10/25 Vladimir Stavrinov <vst...@gm...>

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Andrei Martsinchyk
> <and...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > I think your test was incorrect. It works.
>
> No, it is exactly what this thread started from and what indicated in
> its subject. See very first answer of developer: it is not even a bug,
> it is by design. Sounds like anecdote, but it is true.
>
> > performance scalability. They could use XC as is. If there is demand of
> HA
> > on market, other developers may create XC-based solutions, more or less
>
> Do You really have question about this? I think High Availability is
> priority number one because we are not very happy sitting in
> Rolls-Royce that can not move.
>

Nice. Rolls-Royce requires road, fuel, driver, service. If you do not
provide all these, you will be sitting in car that can not move. Why you
purchased it then?

-- 
Andrei Martsinchyk

StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
The Database Cloud