Ok thanks all, I'm pretty sure a low timeout is all I'll need, but was
curious about Null pool. Thanks for the info.
iain
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Michael Bayer
wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Michael Bayer
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Iain Duncan
> wrote:
>
>
On Sep 20, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Iain Duncan wrote:
>
>> So can anyone tell me what exactly happens with NullPool, I'm not clear from
>> the docs. Does that mean a fresh connection will be made on a new hit, and
>> we'll never get the "gone
On Sep 19, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Iain Duncan wrote:
> So can anyone tell me what exactly happens with NullPool, I'm not clear from
> the docs. Does that mean a fresh connection will be made on a new hit, and
> we'll never get the "gone away", but at the expense of slower connections?
with the imp
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:40:28AM -0700, Iain Duncan wrote:
> Hi folks, I'm putting together something for a client that will get used
> very occasionally, and has a some worker processes that use SQLA. I'm
> wondering what the right approach is for the dreaded "MySQL has gone away".
> Should I ju
Hi folks, I'm putting together something for a client that will get used
very occasionally, and has a some worker processes that use SQLA. I'm
wondering what the right approach is for the dreaded "MySQL has gone away".
Should I just use some absurdly high number for pool_recycle ( ie months)
or is
