On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:36:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Elsasser <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The purpose of this patch is to easily allow a single database (think
> > PostgreSQL or MySQL) to be shared by multiple repositories.
>
> I am not sure if this is even a good idea. You can share a single
> database cluster (in PostgreSQL lingo, I do not recall how MySQL calls it)
> and have multiple database instances on it, which would give you better
> isolation between repositories. What's the advantage of your approach, I
> have to wonder.
Unless I misunderstand what you mean, that is exactly what I would
like to be able to avoid. A user may not always be able to create new
database instances, or may just want to avoid creating a new one for
each repository.
> > +gitcvs.dbprefix::
>
> And it would not be dbprefix but table name prefix.
All right, how does gitcvs.dbTableNamePrefix sound?
> > @@ -2349,10 +2353,10 @@ sub new
> > }
> >
> > # Construct the revision table if required
> > - unless ( $self->{tables}{revision} )
> > + unless ( $self->{tables}{"$self->{dbprefix}revision"} )
>
> Hmmm. If we are going to insist on having multiple tables in a single
> database, can we make sure we have better chances of catching mistakes by
> doing something like...
>
> * Identify the set of tables and indices one repository would use
> (i.e. revision, revision_ix1, etc.)
It did occur to me that I should abstract it a little more, I just
ended up being lazy about it. A slightly cleaner version should follow
this mail.
-jre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
