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

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".

>> Managability - I want to manage a cluster easily (add node, remove node,
>> spare nodes, monitoring, ...). It cannot be simple enough.
>
> Sure. I don't know about any utilities able to do that, but if you could
> build a utility like this running on top of XC and sell it, well you might
> be able to make some money if XC becomes popular, what is not really the
> case now ;)

There are no problem with adding or removing nodes. But after that we
should something do with data contained in the nodes. In other words,
this is data manipulating issue. And it is not about "utility like
this running on top of XC". It should  be implemented internally.