Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote: > > > Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > > > > > - I think the construction with "read_write_host_index" makes the code even more > > > complicated than it already is. > > > > > > What about keeping the first successful connection open and storing it in a > > > variable if we are in "prefer-read" mode. > > > If we get the read-only connection we desire, close that cached connection, > > > otherwise use it. > > > > Even if we add a variable to cache the connection, I don't think the logic of checking > > the next host for the read-only host logic may not change, but the extra connection > > request to the read-write host again will be removed. > > I evaluated your suggestion of caching the connection and reuse it when there is no > read only server doesn't find, but I am thinking that it will add more complexity and also > the connection to the other servers delays, the cached connection may be closed by > the server also because of timeout. > > I feel the extra time during connection may be fine, if user is preferring the prefer-read > mode, instead of adding more complexity in handling the cached connection? > > comments?
I tested the new patch, and it works as expected.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I don't think that time-out of the cached session is a valid concern, because that would have to be a really short timeout. On the other hand, establishing the connection twice (first to check if it is read-only, then again because no read-only connection is found) can be quite costly.
But that is a matter of debate, as is the readability of the code.
Thanks for your opinion, let's wait for opinion from others also.
I can go for the modification, if others also find it useful.
