separate read and write db in prune() #75
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
link2xt
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2022
|
Hm, tox is failing, I'll investigate |
|
Nevermind, just some cleanup on x.testrun.org failed previously. tbh, something is broken on dc.develcow.de, the mailcow web UI doesn't show me all users anymore. But the API still works. I'll investigate some day. |
This was referenced Dec 30, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes #72, alternative to #73.
This PR takes care that the write transaction of prune() is as short-lived as possible. It avoids touching the db.py complexity, as I don't fully understand the difference of transactions and connections and what @hpk42 had in mind when he wrote that (note that it was before mailcow times).
@link2xt what do you think?