I tried. Ha.
Thanks. I'll have a look.
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 8:19:20 PM UTC-7, Jeremy Evans wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 5:24:21 PM UTC-7, binarypaladin wrote:
>>
>> I recently tried moving to a master/slave setup using the slave as a read
>> only. We're using Postgres 9.3. The configuration was easy enough, but I'm
>> noticing what I'm pretty sure is replication lag given the errors coming
>> back.
>>
>> For the purposes of our application, what I would like to is be able to
>> set certain controller actions or situations to use the read only server
>> (or servers in the future) and others that have to handle writes and
>> sometimes combined reads to go to the master. Can I encapsulate things in a
>> block or set a variable in certain contexts. I know I can force a server in
>> a dataset with #server but I know there are going to be some contexts where
>> I'd be easier just to wrap things in a block.
>>
>> Aaaand... as I typed this it appears that
>> Database#synchronize(<server_name>) { ... } would do the trick. Would I be
>> correct in this?
>>
>
> Alas, no. However, you can use the server_block extension, which supports
> setting a default server for a given block of code.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
