> +1, but we should try to refactor this to eliminate some code duplication.
These were split out on purpose, while the code is similar, the async one needs to be deferred in a database thread for parts of it, while some of it does not, I suppose there's some common code that could be pulled into a single function, but it's not as simple as deferring the synchronous version to the database thread.
> +1, but we should try to refactor this to eliminate some code duplication.
These were split out on purpose, while the code is similar, the async one needs to be deferred in a database thread for parts of it, while some of it does not, I suppose there's some common code that could be pulled into a single function, but it's not as simple as deferring the synchronous version to the database thread.