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

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

> >    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?
>
>
Calm down Vladimir. No one is demonstrating any fanaticism here. I was just
pointing out that the group in a Mysql cluster appears similar to a PG
server and its replica, just that :)


> >    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.
>
>
Using a standby is not an external solution. I wrote that PGXC is an
ongoing project and will surely use them for reads in the future. Why is
that difficult to understand?

Anyways, I guess enough on this from my side.

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