Re: [Postgres-xc-general] Our general use case

[Nikhil S. <ni...@st...>]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Vladimir Stavrinov <vst...@gm...>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Paulo Pires <pj...@ub...> wrote:
>
> > Summing, I've found Postgres-XC to be quite easy to install and
> > configure in a 3 coordinators + 3 data-nodes (GTM all over them and
> > GTM-Proxy handling HA). A little Google and command-line did the trick
> > in *a couple hours*!
>
> In Debian You can install this package in a few seconds.
>
> > Now, the only downside for me is that Postgres-XC doesn't have a
> > built-in way of load-balancing between coordinators. If the coordinator
>
> It is not a problem. The problem is necessity to have standby for
> every data node.
>
>
Why is that a problem? The standby can run on nodes which are part of your
cluster itself.


>But be

> aware: with this solution we have HA only for LB, but not for
> datanodes itself.
>
>
HA for datanodes can be provided by using standy nodes as well.


> That is what we have without HA. And that is why You must
> have standby for every data node. In other word You should build extra
> infrastructure in size of entire cluster.
>
>
It looks like you like the Mysql Cluster product a lot and are trying to
force fit PGXC within its parameters. So going back to your favorite Mysql
Cluster product. The group has to contain at least two nodes for
redundancy, right? Why is that ok and having a replica not ok or not
similar? PGXC can/will certainly provide read capabilities from replicas in
coming versions.

Regards,
Nikhils
-- 
StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
The Database Cloud
Postgres-XC Support and Service