On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:58:26 PM UTC-5, Ed Rahn wrote: > > This seems like a fairly common use case, do people just not care about > it or how do they handle it? >
This isn't common, and looks like an anti-pattern. Consider these lines from your emails - they're not really compatible with one another : * I have several programs that are Multi Process and long running... they open up 30 or so connections and do selects periodically. * the default behaviour is to begin a transaction if not currently in one, but not commit afterwards. * I need to maintain DB consistency with transactions The best way to maintain DB consistency with transactions is to keep the transactions/units-of-work as small as possible. If you have long-running transactions across multiple processes... you're creating a situation that is conducive to integrity errors or locking tables -- and even creating deadlocks. You may be better off just pulling all the data on startup - or periodically - and treating it like a cache. if you have any write operations, use fresh selects -- not the cached data. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
