On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Kirit Sælensminde (kayess) <kirit.saelensmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Strange. We use Postgres and don't see any problem with this. We do > encounter complications occasionally with the lack of composition of > Django transaction handling, but other than that find the transaction > handling adequate. > > Are you actually using transactions in your code? You need to be. The > transaction middleware does a good enough job for most things, but for > external processing you will need to carefully design your transaction > handling. With the transaction middleware we see fully isolated > updates until the transaction is committed using psycopg2.
I'm not sure you understand the problem at all. The problem is not lack of the isolation. The problem is permanent isolation. The isolating transaction is never terminated, thus remaining alive for indefinite amounts of time. You can check this by creating a fresh project using psycopg2 and creating a model. Then write a view that queries the database and invoke it. Now, leaving the server running, open up your database shell. The pg_stat_activity table will report "<IDLE> in transaction" for hours. BTW: This has nothing to do with Django transactions or TransactionMiddleware. -- Patryk Zawadzki -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
