<    March 2017    >
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  
          1  2  3  4  
 5  6  7  8  9 10 11  
12 13 14 15 16 17 18  
19 20 21 22 23 24 25  
26 27 28 29 30 31
00:17 glennpratt joined
00:29 glennpratt joined
00:30 glennpratt joined
00:56 ta_ joined
01:07 glennpratt joined
01:17 ta_ joined
01:29 glennpratt joined
01:30 glennpratt joined
01:48 glennpratt joined
01:51 glennpratt joined
02:19 ta_ joined
03:08 ta_ joined
05:24 jeremyevans joined
07:28 aidalgol joined
09:10 Bish joined
09:16 ta__ joined
10:34 ta_ joined
10:45 ta__ joined
10:55 ta_ joined
11:25 <Bish> is there some mutex i can use on a model?
14:26 <jeremyevans> Bish: an existing mutex? Probably not. What do you need one for?
14:57 glennpratt joined
14:58 <Bish> jeremyevans: my weird sharding model :3
14:59 <Bish> as a cache
14:59 <Bish> or more precise: as mutex for my cache
15:33 banditron joined
16:05 tercenya joined
16:46 tercenya joined
17:58 pabloh joined
18:20 tercenya joined
19:04 mmun joined
20:58 joshdholtz joined
21:34 AYGHOR joined
21:35 <AYGHOR> EHLO
21:35 <AYGHOR> is there some kind of validation available for rcte_tree plugin to avoid cyclic graphs?
21:38 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: Nope
21:39 <AYGHOR> have you tried to make such validations? would you accept a patch? =O3
21:40 <AYGHOR> i just crashed my computer from trying #descendants on a cyclic graph
21:40 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: I haven't tried. I would consider a patch
21:40 <AYGHOR> pg ate all my ram
21:41 <AYGHOR> nice!
21:41 <AYGHOR> i will try and let u know
21:41 <AYGHOR> <3
21:41 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: It would probably be better to use a database constraint/trigger to enforce things
21:41 <AYGHOR> hmm true
22:04 <AYGHOR> =O3
22:04 <AYGHOR> another thing is
22:06 <AYGHOR> is there a way to write a inverted migration, so i dont need to write up and down separately?
22:07 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: there are change migrations, which are reversible, but what can be done in them is fairly limited
22:07 <AYGHOR> yes
22:07 <AYGHOR> wat i want is to write a change migration that drop stuff but still can be reverted
22:07 <AYGHOR> rails has this
22:08 <AYGHOR> http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/Migration/revert
22:08 <AYGHOR> liek this
22:17 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: Nope, Sequel doesn't have something like that
22:18 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: That's not reversible anyway, as data is destroyed whenever you drop a table
22:19 <AYGHOR> true
22:19 <jeremyevans> AYGHOR: save yourself some aggrevation and just use separate up/down :)
22:20 <AYGHOR> ok =O3
22:48 glennpratt joined
23:34 tercenya joined
23:55 GitHub169 joined
23:55 <GitHub169> [13sequel] 15jeremyevans pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://git.io/vSkRU
23:55 <GitHub169> 13sequel/06master 14293ee85 15Jeremy Evans: Deprecate loading the identifier_mangling by default, require it be loaded explicitly if needed...
23:55 <GitHub169> 13sequel/06master 146389a0b 15Jeremy Evans: Deprecate treating unrecognized prepared statement type as :select
23:55 <GitHub169> 13sequel/06master 14a0af7b2 15Jeremy Evans: Deprecate Sequel::Database.single_threaded singleton accessor...
23:55 GitHub169 left
23:58 <lopex> jeremyevans: hey, wrt question asked above, could jdbc drivers have reconnect capabilities given their capabilities ?
23:58 <lopex> the whole thing is a mess I admit