On Dec 1, 2:38 pm, Gary Doades <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/12/2010 10:11 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:> On Dec 1, 1:56 pm, Gary > Doades<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Except that that isn't the case. For example, consider the case where you override the :servers_hash option with Hash.new(:bev1234). Like I said, if you'd like some documentation added/changed, please submit a *patch*. If it's not important enough for you to submit even a simple documentation patch, it's probably not worth modifying the documentation in the first place. > 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? I don't think this is a good idea. Jeremy -- 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.
