On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, James Bennett<ubernost...@gmail.com> wrote: > Except this is what it turns into. So suppose a patch is added which > does nothing except keep the database connection open; well, that's > problematic because it means a server process/thread that's not > handling a request at the moment is still tying up a handle to a DB > connection. So somebody will say it'd be much better if Django > maintained a pool of connections independent of request/response > cycles, and just doled them out as needed.
What I need is sensible, simple and faster, but since someone else might want to turn it into something complex and unnecessary, it shouldn't be done? Sorry, this argument applies to every change anyone might possibly make. There's no "slippery slope" here. I don't want a connection pooler (and all the issues that brings, like not being able to use "local" authentication in Postgres); just to eliminate needless database reconnections. -- Glenn Maynard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
