-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Supporting multiple same-system databases #63
Comments
Let's discuss the following to determine if this will workUsing a linked list provides more flexibility compared to a fixed-size array, as the number of database instances doesn't need to be known in advance. Each new instance is dynamically allocated and added to the list. Modify the NOT SURE ABOUT THIS: Update the handler function in Refactor the Update the Review and update other parts of the codebase that interact with the database configurations to ensure compatibility with the new linked list structure. This may include functions in This change requires careful refactoring of several parts of the codebase. Let's start this incrementally,
|
After analyzing this i believe it is doable and a well-thought-out solution. Will a seperate issue be created, outlining each task? Or should I start implementing this right away according to the tasks posted here? |
Evaluate the existing design and provide a detailed one with additions you found that are needed. |
Currently the way we parse the
config
file, it doesn't support multiple instances of the same database system.The user can't provide multiple
postgres
databases for example to be replicated, because the sections will have overlapand the previous database information will be overwritten.
Maybe one possible solution is to save each database information on an array. For example"
instead of this, we implement it like this:
The size of the array could be malloc'ed at runtime after we parse the
.ini
file. This of course will require somerefactoring from our side (on
db.c
for example), therefore I believe should be given high priority to avoid refactoringlarger parts of the codebase in the future.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: