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

[David H. <pg...@c0...>]

 

 	* No cluster without HA option; I agree.
 	* Integrate XC into PG;
In the future I would like to think of a single PG instance as a 1-node
cluster-able db.

I think PGXC is the best thing that is happening. PGXC
deserves to be the most usable in the world too (instead of mysql). Gtx,


David 

Vladimir Stavrinov schreef op 2012-10-26 14:46: 

> On Thu,
Oct 25, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
> <mic...@gm...>
wrote:
> 
>> 1) It is not our goal to oblige the users to user an HA
solution or another,
> 
> Sounds fine. Where are those users? Who wants
cluster without HA?
> Everybody when hears word "cluster" implies "HA"
>

>> Postgres code with XC. One of the reasons explaining that XC is able
to keep up with Postgres code pace easily is that we avoid to implement
solutions in core that might impact unnecessarily its interactions with
Postgres.
> 
> You are heroes. How long You can continue "code pace" on
this hard
> way? This paradigm prevents You do not implement not only HA
but lot
> of other things that is necessary for cluster. I never saw
this type
> of fork. I believe at some point You will either become a
part of
> Postgres or totally come off and go Your own way. The only
question
> is when? And best answer is "right now".