On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Glenn Maynard<gl...@zewt.org> wrote:
> I see no need for a complex connection pooling service.  You're making
> this sound much more complicated than it is, resulting in people
> needing to use configurations much more complicated than necessary.

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.

And then you need configuration to manage the size of the pool, when
connections get recycled, how to reset connections portably...

And then somebody will notice that it's got all the infrastructure for
pgpool's "poor man's replication" and helpfully submit a patch for
that...

And then we end up in the unenviable state of having wasted a bunch of
time reimplementing features already available in the standard tool
people should've been using from the start, but without getting any of
that tool's useful flexibility (e.g., changing the stuff behind the
pool without changing the application layer).

Or we could just accept that there are tools right now which will do
all this and more for you, and that if you've got enough traffic
through your app that the overhead of DB connections is problematic,
you should be using one of those tools.


-- 
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct."

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to