On 01/12/2010 10:11 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:
On Dec 1, 1:56 pm, Gary Doades<[email protected]> wrote:
So it seems that I MUST add a valid :read_only entry to the servers hash
or bizarre behaviour ensues.
That's misleading. You only need to add a valid :read_only entry to
servers if you are also overriding the :servers_hash option. If you
don't override the :servers_hash option, then you don't need a
read_only entry in the servers hash.
OK, I agree and in this case that's what I meant, only if you specify a
:servers_hash option do you need to specify a :read_only entry, but that
still needs documenting?
This may or not be the intended behaviour.
If so it needs documenting I think.
It is the intended behavior. It's how the master/slave database
support works without any configuration other than setting up the
database connection. If you think it should be documented somewhere,
I'll certainly consider a patch.
I think it just needs stating that if you override the :servers_hash
option then you MUST add a valid :read_only entry to the servers hash.
That seems to do the trick.
Clearly without the :servers_hash option you don't need to do that, or
at least I never did before when only using the :servers option.
Maybe if the call to Sequel.connect (with a :servers_hash override)
doesn't include a :read_only entry you can add one that is the same as
:default. That seems to adhere to the principle of least surprise?
Anyway, as long as we know what to do it all seems to work OK.
Thanks again,
Gary.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en.
