On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> > wrote: > >> Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> >> > - I think the construction with "read_write_host_index" makes the code >> even more >> complicated than it already is. >> >> What about keeping the first successful connection open and storing it >> in a >> variable if we are in "prefer-read" mode. >> If we get the read-only connection we desire, close that cached >> connection, >> otherwise use it. >> > > Even if we add a variable to cache the connection, I don't think the logic > of checking > the next host for the read-only host logic may not change, but the extra > connection > request to the read-write host again will be removed. > I evaluated your suggestion of caching the connection and reuse it when there is no read only server doesn't find, but I am thinking that it will add more complexity and also the connection to the other servers delays, the cached connection may be closed by the server also because of timeout. I feel the extra time during connection may be fine, if user is preferring the prefer-read mode, instead of adding more complexity in handling the cached connection? comments? Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
