github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-23 15:42:09 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[PR #5887] [CLOSED] fix(adpaters/drizzle-adapter) use primary db connection for transactions #6297

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-13 12:53:52 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 0 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-03-13 12:53:52 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/5887
Author: @JacobSchroder
Created: 11/10/2025
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: canary ← Head: fix/drizzle-adapter-use-primary-db-conn-for-transactions

📝 Commits (2)

  • 48e5909 fix(adpaters/drizzle-adapter) use primary db conn for transactions
  • 6146dbd Merge branch 'canary' into fix/drizzle-adapter-use-primary-db-conn-for-transactions

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+2 additions, -1 deletions)

View changed files

📝 packages/better-auth/src/adapters/drizzle-adapter/drizzle-adapter.ts (+2 -1)

📄 Description

When using drizzle with read replicas, transactions that have both read and write operations seem to use both connections (primary and read-only), resulting in the writes not being reflected on to the read-only instances (before the transaction is committed).

For instance, when using the emailOTP plugin, and users signed up using this method the following would happen within the same drizzle transaction:

  1. The user would be created (primary/writer instance)
  2. Read the newly created user (read replica) > TypeError: null is not an object (evaluating 'user.banned')

I did a workaround in my application using better-auth and the drizzle-adapter, by passing the primary db instance to the drizzleAdapter drizzleAdapter(db.$primary, ...), which fixed the issue, but completely disables using read replicas with better-auth.

This PR should solve the issue, while still allowing for the use of read replicas (when transactions are not used, internally)

Summary by cubic

Run transactions on the primary DB connection in the Drizzle adapter (falling back to the default when no primary exists). This avoids mixed read/write transactions hitting read replicas and missing uncommitted writes (e.g., email OTP user reads returning null).

Written for commit 6146dbda00. Summary will update automatically on new commits.

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/5887 **Author:** [@JacobSchroder](https://github.com/JacobSchroder) **Created:** 11/10/2025 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `canary` ← **Head:** `fix/drizzle-adapter-use-primary-db-conn-for-transactions` --- ### 📝 Commits (2) - [`48e5909`](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/commit/48e5909e33e7bd327b89f5c9b0918b2841b53b77) fix(adpaters/drizzle-adapter) use primary db conn for transactions - [`6146dbd`](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/commit/6146dbda001744ceac88ee5297bc905c5ded8f68) Merge branch 'canary' into fix/drizzle-adapter-use-primary-db-conn-for-transactions ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+2 additions, -1 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `packages/better-auth/src/adapters/drizzle-adapter/drizzle-adapter.ts` (+2 -1) </details> ### 📄 Description When using drizzle with [read replicas](https://orm.drizzle.team/docs/read-replicas), transactions that have both read and write operations seem to use both connections (primary and read-only), resulting in the writes not being reflected on to the read-only instances (before the transaction is committed). For instance, when using the emailOTP plugin, and users signed up using this method the following would happen within the same drizzle transaction: 1. The user would be created (primary/writer instance) 2. Read the newly created user (read replica) > `TypeError: null is not an object (evaluating 'user.banned')` I did a workaround in my application using better-auth and the drizzle-adapter, by passing the primary db instance to the drizzleAdapter `drizzleAdapter(db.$primary, ...)`, which fixed the issue, but completely disables using read replicas with better-auth. This PR should solve the issue, while still allowing for the use of read replicas (when transactions are not used, internally) <!-- This is an auto-generated description by cubic. --> --- ## Summary by cubic Run transactions on the primary DB connection in the Drizzle adapter (falling back to the default when no primary exists). This avoids mixed read/write transactions hitting read replicas and missing uncommitted writes (e.g., email OTP user reads returning null). <sup>Written for commit 6146dbda001744ceac88ee5297bc905c5ded8f68. Summary will update automatically on new commits.</sup> <!-- End of auto-generated description by cubic. --> --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
GiteaMirror added the pull-request label 2026-03-13 12:53:52 -05:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label pull-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#6297
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?