DBI and the shadowdb

[Bradley Baetz]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Myk Melez wrote:

> Bradley Baetz wrote:
> 
> >myk, if I produced a replication patch which allowed teh existing 
> >shadowdb to be used in parallel, would bmo use it when it upgrades to get 
> >request tracker soonish? And would you object if I then removed the 
> >fallback support for syncshadowdb soon after?
> >
> I'm curious what you mean by "in parallel", and doing this gives me some 
> work to do as well (reconfiguring the server) that I'm not sure I'll 
> have time for before the upgrade, but if I do, and if the replication 
> patch went in and looked very good, I would turn it on after upgrade 
> regressions were dealt with, and if it worked I wouldn't have any 
> problem with removing the shadow database code.  As far as I am 
> concerned, good riddance to the shadowdb.

'In parallel' == The ability to run with either synshadowdb or 
replication. This code is going to be _ugly_.

Without the 'in parallel' stuff, you'd ahve to set up replication before 
the update.

> 
> Even if I don't get the server reconfigured before the upgrade, though, 
> it's something I can (and will) do afterwards, so working on the 
> replication patch isn't a waste of time no matter when I get to the 
> reconfiguration.

OK. I'll update my current patch, and see where that leaves us.

> 
> Btw- Are there any plans to make it possible to install a read-only 
> installation of Bugzilla that directs all write requests to another 
> installation.  This, along with replication, would provide an quick and 
> easy scalability solution (just add more boxes).
> 

Well, we could use DBD::multiplex. The problem is the definition of 'write 
request', esp with consistent data, and so on.

> -myk
> 

Bradley