On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Brett Hoerner <br...@bretthoerner.com> wrote: > On Dec 22 2009, 4:27 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I'll need to cogitate on this over my Christmas pudding :-) > > Did you come to any conclusions, or need any more feedback on the read- > slave testing issue?
I haven't reached any conclusions - my pudding was not enlightening in this regard. :-) The complication is that without a good model of how master/slave will work in normal code, it's difficult to work out how the test framework should behave. My suggestion of TEST_NAME=None or your suggestion of TEST_NAME= (default TEST_NAME) are both relatively simple to implement, but I don't want to rush into implementing something that doesn't actually help in practical terms. If you're actually doing master/slave in the wild, your guidance may actually be more enlightening than my theoretical navel gazing. In particular - how have you got master/slave configured? How do you find and select slave databases? How does that approach degrade when DATABASES suddenly has less entries (including the case of a config with no slaves)? > I in no way mean to rush, I just wanted to make sure I didn't (and > don't) miss anything as I'm more than happy to test any changes > against our rather large and quirky setup. You certainly haven't missed anything. There have been a couple of discussions on separate threads about cross-database joins, but they haven't turned into any trunk commits yet. Yours, Russ Magee %-)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
