On 9/8/06, Drew Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/8/06, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > mst asked me to write up a justification as to why DBD::Multiplex > > should be completely disregarded when developing the master/slave > > round-robin code. > > Crap. Not good. Interesting though that Tim Bunce mentioned it in > OSCON talks this summer, so I assumed it was a goodo bet. :-( > > I'm in the process of adding replication to a mysql installation (RT > 3.4.x) and was planning to use DBD::Multiplex. Do you have any > suggestions for alternatives in the meantime? The application is setup > such that I think it would be a royal PITA to hack the functionality > into RT.
I don't have any good suggestions in terms of packaged solutions. One thing to keep in mind is that you usually have a really good idea of when you're doing a mutate and when you're not. So, you could just defer your DBH creation until you know whether you're mutate-free or not. Now, hacking that into RT will be .... interesting. And, some applications ALWAYS do a mutate (for logging or auditing purposes), so this sort of round-robin architecture will never work. All the applications I write tend to fall into that category. I don't know if RT does. Rob _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
