Hi everyone, I'm comparing a bit Active Record's implementation of primary/replica selection with Sequel. Active Record requires you to manually switch the connection to a replica, and has a Rack middleware that can do this switching based on HTTP verbs, which I'm very skeptical about.
On the Ruby Day conference, I asked Eileen why didn't GitHub go the route of having Active Record automatically use replica for reads (like Sequel), and the answer was that it was due to the replication lag, where the newly updated data will not be immediately available on the replica, so it's dangerous to write something to a primary and then try to immediately read it from a replica. If this is really the general case, does that make Sequel's approach of automatically using replica for reads less useful? I still like Sequel's approach much better, I just want to better understand the trade-offs. Kind regards, Janko -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sequel-talk/81bfa238-6f1c-43d6-9140-db66e21268d0n%40googlegroups.com.
