From: Reini U. <ru...@x-...> - 2005-01-07 16:17:00
|
Manuel VACELET schrieb: > Dan Frankowski wrote: >> That's cool. You should submit a patch to Phpwiki, just in case Reini >> changes his mind. :-) Here is SourceForge's patches tracker: > > Patch available here > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1097938&group_id=6121&atid=306121 I'll have a look after 1.3.11 but I still see no technical reason, why this should be better than tablename prefixes. Merging all the seperate table sets into one big mess... >I can certainly imagine a reason to want multiple wiki instances in a >single database. It's for ease of management. >Suppose there is something that breaks upon upgrade for some DBs. If >you have 10,000 DBs, then you have to nurse each one. Or suppose that >you wish to change the parameters of the DB for size or performance. >One can either apply that once, or have to somehow apply it 10,000 >times. There are definite advantages to grouping wikis into a single >DB. Other than helping administrative SQL tasks outside the wiki maybe. Schema upgrades are done now via action=upgrade. But a simple mysql script is also easy, looping over all existing prefixes. Should I provide such a script for wikifarm schema upgrades? But for gforge integration it is really not needed. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/ |