On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Glenn Maynard<gl...@zewt.org> wrote: > In this case, that's a terrible-performance-by-default approach. > (It's also not a default, but the only behavior, but I'll probably > submit a patch to add a setting for this if I don't hit any major > problems.)
Please do a bit more research and reflection on the topic before you start submitting patches, because this isn't quite what you're making it out to be. In the case of a fairly low-traffic site, you're not going to notice any real performance difference (since you're not doing enough traffic for connection overhead to add up). In the case of a high-traffic site, you almost certainly want some sort of connection-management utility (like pgpool) regardless of what Django does, in which case it becomes rather moot (since what you're doing is getting connection handles from pgpool or something similar). Meanwhile, the codebase stays much simpler and avoids some pitfalls with potential resource and state leaks. (and, in general, I don't believe that connection-management utilities belong in an ORM; keeping them in a different part of the stack drastically increases flexibility in precisely the cases where you need it most) -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
