I have only just started to use ZODB and have been able to use it with
ease so far.
I want to be able to have access to multiple ZODB databases at the same
time that are completely independent.
What I cannot see how to do is to keep the changes to the objects from
each database separate -
On 05/12/2010 01:11 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
It occurs to me that it would be useful, at the application level, to
have some measure of an object's record size. This would, for
example, be a better basis for OOBucket splits than item count.
I thought we gained such an _p_ attribute as an
Thanks Christian.
With a little rooting around based on your advice I have got the independent
saving working.
Thanks for your help.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: zodb-dev-bounces+mnoble=xype@zope.org
[mailto:zodb-dev-bounces+mnoble=xype@zope.org] On Behalf Of Christian Theune
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
On 05/12/2010 01:11 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
It occurs to me that it would be useful, at the application level, to
have some measure of an object's record size. This would, for
example, be a better basis for OOBucket splits
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
Hmm. If the full backup is just a regular FS file then you could start
with the naive approach and just open/close it once after performing a
backup as that would create the index file.
Sure. That would be an easy but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
Hmm. If the full backup is just a regular FS file then you could start
with the naive approach and just open/close it once after performing a
backup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
Hmm. If the full backup is just a regular FS file then you could start
with the naive approach and just open/close it once after
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I would be willing to make a stab at this, if we can hold off on a
3.10.0 beta until I've had a chance to try it.
Oh, awesome! Best possible outcome I could hope for - someone else
wants to do the work for me ;-)
Hanno
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
...
Jim, would you please review and merge the 'tseaver-better_repozo_tests'
branch to the ZODB trunk? The only non-test change is the one I'm
replying to, which is intended purely to make stuff more unit testable.
Done
The file storage iterator was implemented before Python had iterators.
(Actually, Python previously had an iterator based on a corner
of the sequence protocol, which FileStorage used.)
There's a test for storage iterators that verifies that they raise
a special exception that extends
10 matches
Mail list logo
