On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:54:48AM -0700, David Ihnen wrote:
> Peter Corlett wrote:
[...]
>> It was more a prompt for somebody with better inside knowledge of
>> DBIx::Class to take the idea and run with it or suggest a better
>> implementation. No point writing tests for code that's not suitab
John Napiorkowski wrote:
>
> I also have some concerns related to any of the bits where reads and writes
> are mixed (or potentially so) behind the scenes, since the replication code
> has to allow the read source to potentially lag from the write source. For
> me, I'd like to see more of this
Peter Corlett wrote:
On 19 Apr 2009, at 11:14, Matt S Trout wrote:
[...]
And the patch didn't come with tests, so I assumed he didn't *want*
it to
be applied ...
It was more a prompt for somebody with better inside knowledge of
DBIx::Class to take the idea and run with it or suggest a better
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:49:29AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009, at 11:14, Matt S Trout wrote:
>> >Valid idea though, and something we should look at making a
>> >capability in
>> >storage for 09 - in the meantime I'd recommen
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:49:29AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2009, at 11:14, Matt S Trout wrote:
> >Valid idea though, and something we should look at making a
> >capability in
> >storage for 09 - in the meantime I'd recommend rewriting it as a
> >reusltset
> >component just as pe
On 19 Apr 2009, at 11:14, Matt S Trout wrote:
[...]
And the patch didn't come with tests, so I assumed he didn't *want*
it to
be applied ...
It was more a prompt for somebody with better inside knowledge of
DBIx::Class to take the idea and run with it or suggest a better
implementation. N
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 03:29:24PM -0700, John Napiorkowski wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/18/09, Jess Robinson wrote:
>
> > From: Jess Robinson
> > Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] Insert or Update (was ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08)
> > To: "DBIx::Class user and develop
--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Jess Robinson wrote:
> From: Jess Robinson
> Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] Insert or Update (was ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08)
> To: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
> Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 6:38 AM
>
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Jess Robinson
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Jess Robinson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Peter Corlett wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm b/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
> index 816b374..a8d501b 100644
> --- a/lib/DBIx/Class/Result
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
On 13 Apr 2009, at 09:35, Tim Bunce wrote:
[...]
If you use SELECT FOR UPDATE then savepoints aren't required for a safe
implementation, right?
No.
Critically thoug
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Peter Corlett wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm b/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
index 816b374..a8d501b 100644
--- a/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
+++ b/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
@@ -2103,13 +2
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm b/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
> index 816b374..a8d501b 100644
> --- a/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
> +++ b/lib/DBIx/Class/ResultSet.pm
> @@ -2103,13 +2103,43 @@ sub update_or_create {
>Fr
Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2009, at 09:35, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> [...]
>>> If you use SELECT FOR UPDATE then savepoints aren't required for a safe
>>> implementation, right?
>> No.
>
>> Critically though, if the SELECT does not retu
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:20:41AM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2009, at 09:35, Tim Bunce wrote:
> [...]
>> If you use SELECT FOR UPDATE then savepoints aren't required for a safe
>> implementation, right?
>
> No.
> Critically though, if the SELECT does not return any rows, nothing is
On 13 Apr 2009, at 11:20, Peter Corlett wrote:
[...]
So it looks like this still needs savepoints to do correctly. Of
course, one could always instead do a heroically complex bodge job
that looks really impressive but doesn't actually work.
And in the interests of STFUAWSC:
diff --git a/lib
On 13 Apr 2009, at 09:35, Tim Bunce wrote:
[...]
If you use SELECT FOR UPDATE then savepoints aren't required for a
safe
implementation, right?
No.
update_or_create() currently does the following: it does a SELECT to
retrieve any extant row; if the row exists it then does an UPDATE if
ne
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:37:00PM +0100, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:23:36PM +0200, Andreas Mock wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> However, I'm not quite sure this trick completely retains the semantics
> >> of create_or_update, so it wouldn't be a drop-in replacement.
> > It would be i
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: "Peter Corlett"
> Gesendet: 12.04.09 14:41:26
> An: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
> Betreff: Re: [Dbix-class] Insert or Update (was ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08)
Hi Peter,
> Because I'm already using trans
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:23:36PM +0200, Andreas Mock wrote:
[...]
>> The current implementation does a SELECT followed by an INSERT or UPDATE
>> as appropriate. This introduces a race condition. The whole thing is a
>> critical section and needs to be wrapped in a transaction or savepoint.
> O.k.
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: "Peter Corlett"
> Gesendet: 09.04.09 15:39:05
> An: "DBIx::Class user and developer list"
> Betreff: Re: [Dbix-class] ANNOUNCE: 0.08099_08 (0.08100_RC2)
> The current implementation does a SELECT followed by an INSERT or UPDATE as
> appropriate. This in
20 matches
Mail list logo
