On Fri, 26 May 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2000, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > I have released Apache::Session 1.51. The addition of the Oracle backing
> > store took less time than expected. It is included and tested in this
> > release. This is the only change from 1.50.
> >
> > http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Apache/Apache-Session-1.51.tar.gz
>
> This new stuff looks really good. This module has come a long way in the
> time I've been watching the list.
>
> A couple of notes on the Oracle storage module:
>
> - Using "FOR UPDATE" forces the transactional lock model. Is it possible
> to make this optional? The other modes allow the use of a "enforce data
> integrity only" locking style which is sometimes needed. I'm less worried
> about people overwriting their own session data than I am about stale
> locks, although I suppose Apache::DBI's cleanup handler should take care
> of them.
I assume that if people are using a transactional database, they are
knowledgable about transactions. That's why I made the Commit argument
mandatory for the Oracle and Postgres backing stores: it forces people to
consider their transaction policy.
>
> - Oracle (the company) says not to use LONG anymore. They are trying to
> move everything to CLOB/BLOB. I modified my Apache::Session::DBI to
> support this, which mostly involved specifying "ora_type => ORA_BLOB" in
> my bind variable parameters. Maybe we need and Oracle8 module, separate
> from the standard one? By the way, BLOBs don't work with synonyms, so you
> have to specify the schema name in the SQL when using them.
That's lame. So, we would need to pass the schema name as an
argument? Remind me again what's wrong with LONG?
> I know you were working on a BerkeleyDB storage module. Are you still
> working on it, or did you throw up your hands in disgust over the
> BerkeleyDB module? Although I don't have time right now, I could
> eventually work on this if you aren't already doing it.
>
> Finally, everybody loves benchmarks. Do you have any cool speed
> comparisons between the various storage and locking options? I'm sure the
> list would be very interested. Even better would be a little benhcmarking
> script that people could use on their own systems to do comparisons.
Maybe i'll whip something up that;s portable. For benchmarks that aren't
portable, check the b/ directory in the distro.
-jwb
