> On Sep 10, 10:24 pm, "Mike Malone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Pownce, for example, we stick users to the master database for some > > period of time (a couple of seconds, usually) after they post a new note. > > The problem here (as Malcolm pointed out) is that related managers use > the > > default manager for the related field. So if I ask for a User's Notes, > the > > default Note manager is used. That manager is, presumably, where the > > decision is going to be made as to whether the slave or the master should > be > > queried. But the Note manager has no way of knowing whether the User is > > stuck to the master -- it doesn't even know that there's a User > associated > > with the query... > > That's really interesting. I wonder if that invalidates the whole > approach I proposed, or merely means it needs some refining? >
I think it just needs refining. My understanding is that related fields was due for a refactor anyways, so this would probably be a good time to do / think about it. I guess my point is that there needs to be some non-internal API for getting at related field information, too. In any case, more thought is required. Mike --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
