On 8/22/07, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am now at the prospect of using a MySQL database in the form of a
> 2-machine master-slave cluster. If I understand things right this
> requires Django to actually know which queries should be directed to
> which host, i.e. writes on master,
On 8/22/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So - I would suggest holding off for a week or two (to let the dust
> settle on the refactor), and then poke this issue again. For the
> record, I think the general idea has merit, we just need to finess
> some details.
Yeah, we should
Hi, all.
svn:ignore is not set for .pyc files on the new management package. I
know I can set my own global svn config, but since we do it for all
the rest of Django, I thought I would point it out.
Is mentioning it here sufficient, or should I open a ticket?
Cheers,
deryck
--~--~-~--
On 8/22/07, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did a search and found this thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/49a6b99dbcea4364/dbaa965c304feed3
>
> It looks like there was general support for the idea but the thread
> died and as far as I can t
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Yeah, you're right. I've been sucking a lot on this and keeping others
> back. Everybody's been very restrained and understanding.
>
> I need to stop changing my mind about what to do and stop getting
> distracted by shiny objects like other bugs and finish this, or at
sqlrelay router might be of use:
http://sqlrelay.sourceforge.net/sqlrelay/router.html
On 8/22/07, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Alexis Smirnov wrote:
> > If the goal is scalability, one needs to assume a cache-based solution
> > isn't appropriate or isn't enough, right?
>
> Yes, w
Alexis Smirnov wrote:
> If the goal is scalability, one needs to assume a cache-based solution
> isn't appropriate or isn't enough, right?
Yes, we need scalability. We are expecting couple of tens of millions
request a day in a near future.
As for cache... I didn't evaluate it in practice but o
If your primary goal is redundancy (not scalability) then you could
maybe get away with using the master for all queries while keeping the
slave as a "hot spare".
We've been using this master-slave configuration with a django-based
app. All queries (read and write) go to the master. When master d
Hi!
I am now at the prospect of using a MySQL database in the form of a
2-machine master-slave cluster. If I understand things right this
requires Django to actually know which queries should be directed to
which host, i.e. writes on master, reads on both master and slave.
I'm about to start
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 03:13:52PM +1000, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-08-19 at 23:01 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> [...]
> > I haven't yet made DatabaseError, IntegrityError and the introspection
> > and creation functionality accessible via the django.db.connection
> > object. Th
hi,
while the auto_id features of newforms is more on dealing on the
client side, could it good to have auto_name feature also? To give you
an idea, I am dealing here with a master details form where in the
details part will compose of more than one same kind of form, which
the data could be diff
I did a search and found this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/49a6b99dbcea4364/dbaa965c304feed3
It looks like there was general support for the idea but the thread
died and as far as I can tell there was never any decision or ticket.
Just tonight I f
12 matches
Mail list logo
