Re: [PATCH v2] Allow git-cvsserver database table name prefix to be specified.

From: Josh Elsasser <josh@elsasser.org>
Date: Mar 27, 2008, 20:57 UTC
Message-ID: <20080327205727.GN2324@opal.elsasser.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vwsnyx8ga.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:36:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Josh Elsasser <josh@elsasser.org> 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?

Show 13 quoted lines

> > @@ -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