feat: add SQLDB() to get the underlying database/sql.(*DB) from a store #830
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
aeneasr
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2023
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment. Otherwise, this will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 45+7 days with no activity. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is being done in this PR?
This allows pop users to obtain a handle to the underlying connection pool (
database/sql.(*DB)). This is useful, for example, to collect Prometheus metrics about the status of the connection pool.What are the main choices made to get to this solution?
It was the simplest way. The current design of a
pop/(*Tx)implementing thestoreinterface is not optimal, and perhaps a distinctions should be made between a datastore and a transaction (since they are different concepts). But that's a bigger refactoring.I'd also be open to different implementation strategies.
List the manual test cases you've covered before sending this PR:
Not sure this needs any tests, really.