On May 22, 6:15 pm, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:41 AM, m...@nysv.org > <markus.tornqv...@gmail.com>wrote: > > FWIW, the only other time I recall something like this coming up is here: > http://groups.google.com/group/django-users/browse_thread/thread/4b9a...
Cool, but frightening :) > You need to ensure that your multiple processes are not attempting to share > a single database connection; whatever you are doing now is apparently > resulting in them all trying to use a single connection. You might try > starting off your routine that you are running in parallel with a > connection.close() (connection is in django.db) and seeing if that forces > re-initialization of a new connection for each process. Don't know if that > will actually work, though. That's what they're doing now; I tested closing the db connection and less surprisingly the program died on "psycopg2.OperationalError: server closed the connection unexpectedly" What I had time to hack together was a version where I call the functions (to be ran in separate processes) from a separate module. This failed too, and even though I'm not surprised, I think it points to the direction that whatever I fork() off the original process will share the connection. Maybe I'll still try Process objects instead of processing.Pool.imap() to be safe.. Thanks! -- mjt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
