I agree with Noah. What's the problem this is really solving in the real world? Why did you ever need a separate read database?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Noah Kantrowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:38 AM, Axel Gembe wrote: > >> >> Basically this patch adds a second connection pool for the write >> server. The new >> configuration option is "database_write", with the same syntax as >> the normal >> "database" option. If database_write is omitted then the normal pool >> will be >> used. >> It works by returning a DatabasePair instead of the actual database >> connection. >> Much existing code will have to be changed to support this change, >> which will be >> done in the following patch. The goal of this is to implement easy >> synchronization between two Trac instances by having one master >> database which >> pushes changes to the slave databases. > > -1 on this whole patch set. Trac already can't handle simple > replication, so all this added complexity is for pretty much nothing. > This would also be yet another global break for very little gain. > > --Noah > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" 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/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
