bug#32234: [PATCH 2/2] database: Serialize all database accesses in a thread.

[Clément Lassieur]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Clément,
>
> Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Excellent, thanks for working on this!  This looks great to me, and I
>>> think the pros outweigh the cons.  Did you check on a big database how
>>> well it performs?
>>
>> Yes, I didn't see any difference.  When I use Berlin's database, it
>> works well but crashes quickly for another reason (lack of disk space I
>> think, and /tmp being tmpfs).
>
> Sounds good (not that it crashes, but that you didn’t see any
> difference ;-)).
>
>>> I think I find it nicer to keep the ‘db’ parameter everywhere (except
>>> that it’s now a channel instead of an actual database) rather than using
>>> this global variable.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> That 'db' parameter made sense before, because there were different
>> database connections: one per fiber.  But now that there is only one
>> global channel accessible from everywhere, I can't find any use for a
>> 'db-channel' parameter.
>>
>> Also, using two differents channels for the same database would be a
>> bug, it would break the serialization mechanism.
>>
>> And I don't think using several databases (with one channel per
>> database) would make sense either.
>
> These are all good points, indeed.  I’m mildly reluctant to the global
> parameter, but if you prefer it that way, I don’t mind; the end result
> matters more than this tiny issue anyway!
>
> So: LGTM.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Ludo’.

Ok, pushed!