River Tarnell wrote: > Platonides: >> Is mediawiki table structure going to change? RevisionDelete system is not >> friendly for partial replication, but precisely doing things that way is what >> [will] allows avoiding the row-copying from revision to archive of the 'old' >> deletion system. > > sorry, i don't quite follow what you're saying here. we changed the view > definitions on the toolserver when rev_deleted went into use to avoid exposing > this information to the users. we don't use any sort of trigger. > > BTW: there is no "partial replication" at the toolserver, although this is a > common misconception. we replicate everything, then use views to expose the > relevant data to users. this is why the foundation won't allow us to add any > more admins; the internal / private wikis are also replicated to the > toolserver, and visible to any admin.
I know. That's precisely what i'm addressing. From your email, WMF is "reorganising their databases" so the toolserver can get more admins (less private data is replicated/stored at ts). Any such schema change to the schema would be pretty big, IMHO (and yet incomplete). >> Moreover, any more private method for sharing the tables (eg. a trigger >> deleting the row when rev_deleted is set) would precisely lose the backup >> ability the toolserver is performing. > > i don't know what you mean by "more private", but the method we use has no > effect at all on how useful the toolserver would be as a backup. > > - river. Changes so toolserver roots can't get /some/ information would. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
