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

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

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:36:24AM -0400, Mason Sharp wrote:

> > 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.

How it is related with cite above? It is not about scalability, it is
about transparency. No matter how much nodes for writes we have. But if
You have separate points for read and write, then You loose transparency.

> It took years until PostgreSQL itself had built-in replication. 

I don't blame You don't implement something yet. We have something other
point of controversy here. The discussion in these two close threads is
about what "must have" and what should not. It is about priority and
concept.

> I think most on here also feel strongly about having HA, 

But this discussion shows something else. All my opponents (and I still
saw no one supporter ) here very strongly insists, that HA is not high
priority for XC or should not be implemented in the core. But my
endlessly repeated question "Who wants cluster without HA?" got never
answered in any form. So it is become mystery question.

> it is just not built into the core at present.

"at present" means it will built or possible in the future. Good news.
It is first ray of light in the darkness or the light at the end of the
tunnel. And it is more important that it come from "Architect and
development leader" of XC. Though, it is characteristically, I am not
surprised, something like this I expected. Thanks.

-- 

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