Views DB Slave Patch

Yes needs work is the right status. 170KB of diff is not the right thing :)

Additional you need to rerole this against v3. This should be a query plugin setting.

Additional there is some debug code left.

Additional db_query_slave is not part of d6-core, but just pressflow. So this will brake some things. I guess the best way would be to just support v3 and write a additional query plugin which supports this kind of stuff but requires pressflow.

In views3 you can use hook_views_plugins_alter to change the handler of the sql query plugin. Then you can do everything you want in your own query plugin

disect a page can be painful... Especially when you come back to a client site some months later and try to remember what all the bits are that you put into the pa

All medium and/or high traffic sites using Views 2, need some kind of facility that implements this feature.

Proove this, i can give other examples.

If you add this to view 100 new issues will be there which will report: the function db_query_slave is not there.
I see no real reason for this to be on views. It's possible without a patch in views3. Old versions of software cannot have every new feature.

You're right, this could be a useful starting point for someone...and they'll never find it in the Views issue queue. This should be placed alongside the patches that allow master/slave functionality, whereever that is.

I see no real reason for this to be on views. It's possible without a patch in views3. Old versions of software cannot have every new feature.

Could you specify how this can be achieved with views 3.x? Is there some custom plugin available?
(+subscribe)

EDIT: I guess this is what I should look at:
https://wiki.fourkitchens.com/display/PF/Using+database+replication+with...
http://www.lullabot.com/articles/querying-slave-database-with-views

Read http://www.lullabot.com/articles/querying-slave-database-with-views

It's possible to use on the latest version of views 3.x

This should probably be re-rolled with function_exists('db_query_slave') wrapped in each if statement to prevent errors when developing on a dev server using the same codebase but no slave server.

Also, I don't believe in D6 it's safe to assume a slave is configured unlike in D7. Another test should be included to check for the existence of the $db_slave variable and that it's a populated array. Can anyone confirm if db_query_slave() gracefully degrades or not? (Doesn't appear so viewing the patch.)

Please create patches using diff -up or svn diff --diff-cmd diff -x -up to make for more readable diffs per Creating patches.

Congrats, @miltonsp, for writing this patch for Views2. It is much needed by pretty much everybody that uses Pressflow as long as Views3 is in alpha stage and without documentation.