Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Clément, > > Clément Lassieur <[email protected]> skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Excellent, thanks for working on this! This looks great to me, and I >>> think the pros outweigh the cons. Did you check on a big database how >>> well it performs? >> >> Yes, I didn't see any difference. When I use Berlin's database, it >> works well but crashes quickly for another reason (lack of disk space I >> think, and /tmp being tmpfs). > > Sounds good (not that it crashes, but that you didn’t see any > difference ;-)). > >>> I think I find it nicer to keep the ‘db’ parameter everywhere (except >>> that it’s now a channel instead of an actual database) rather than using >>> this global variable. >>> >>> WDYT? >> >> That 'db' parameter made sense before, because there were different >> database connections: one per fiber. But now that there is only one >> global channel accessible from everywhere, I can't find any use for a >> 'db-channel' parameter. >> >> Also, using two differents channels for the same database would be a >> bug, it would break the serialization mechanism. >> >> And I don't think using several databases (with one channel per >> database) would make sense either. > > These are all good points, indeed. I’m mildly reluctant to the global > parameter, but if you prefer it that way, I don’t mind; the end result > matters more than this tiny issue anyway! > > So: LGTM. > > Thank you! > > Ludo’. Ok, pushed!
