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

[Mason S. <ma...@st...>]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Vladimir Stavrinov
<vst...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:03:54PM +0530, Nikhil Sontakke wrote:
>
>>    Using a standby is not an external solution. I wrote that PGXC is
>>    an ongoing project and will surely use them for reads
>
> It is not the same. What about write? Then You should teach Your
> application where to read and where to write. What about transparency?

You can get more write scalability with more data nodes.

The project has made a lot of progress since its inception and for a
long time a lot of the focus needed to be on just making sure the core
database worked. :-)  I suspect read balancing for data node standbys
will happen at some point.

As for HA, I think on this mailing list different ideas were discussed
to achieve HA. Koichi Suzuki just did a presentation this week in
Prague about HA. Someone else mentioned they are using pgbouncer. We
are using Corosync/Pacemaker and have two synchronous replicas per
data node.  It took years until PostgreSQL itself had built-in
replication. Perhaps hooks will be made within XC to help with HA,
perhaps there will be an add-on that can be downloaded, perhaps basic
data node failover from coordinators could be done (but other
components would need failover too). I think most on here also feel
strongly about having HA, it is just not built into the core at
present.


-- 
Mason Sharp

StormDB - http://www.stormdb.com
The Database Cloud
Postgres-XC Support and Services