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

[Vladimir S. <vst...@gm...>]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:52:33PM +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:

>    Why is that a problem? The standby can run on nodes which are part
>    of your cluster itself.

It is already answered many times: because it is extra management, extra
recourses and dead weight.

>    HA for datanodes can be provided by using standy nodes as well.

The same as above.

>    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

Again! I have wrote a lot here about mysql. Please, read before write.
I don't like mysql, but even enemies may be right. Where this
intolerant fanaticism from here where I expect intelligent people?
Especially I like "Go away!". You don't want discussion? Then what are
You doing here?

>    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

The difference You are pointed out on Yourself in Your next sentences: In
an cluster all redundant data are under work load, they are available for
read and write, i.e. they are working. But in any external solutions
they are sleeping.

>    capabilities from replicas in coming versions.

-- 

***************************
##  Vladimir Stavrinov
##  vst...@gm...
***************************