#33584: Encourage using persistent database connections
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Tom Carrick | Owner: Tom
| Carrick
Type: New feature | Status: closed
Component: Database layer | Version: dev
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution: needsinfo
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Florian Apolloner):
Replying to [comment:2 Carlton Gibson]:
> It looks like this has come up before, and there's a problem with
runserver compatibility: [https://groups.google.com/g/django-
developers/c/rH0QQP7tI6w/m/yBusiFTNBR4J mailing list post from 2013].
I think this still holds true. Unless we change runserver to use a
threadpool (or db pool) it doesn't make much sense to use persistent
connections there.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33584#comment:4>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107017fbbc31c6c-48451393-a53e-4361-9295-402377768686-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
