On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:16 -0800, msoulier wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:46 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Django doesn't do any explicit table locking, although there are
> > transactions involved. However, that shouldn't be affecting this.
>
> So Django is not safe to use in
On Dec 3, 2:16 pm, msoulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So one process was waiting to acquire an AccessExclusiveLock, and
> there was already an AccessShareLock on it (the clients table).
I've tried Django's transaction middleware, but I'm not sure that a
commit is taking place in postgres, as t
On Nov 18, 7:46 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Django doesn't do any explicit table locking, although there are
> transactions involved. However, that shouldn't be affecting this.
So Django is not safe to use in a concurrent environment? Well, it is
if you don't mind two user
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 12:10 -0800, msoulier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a daemon process running using the Django ORM API to access/
> modify tables in PostgreSQL. I just ran into an issue where it looks
> like the process is keeping read-locks on the tables that it is
> reading, which is prevent
Hello,
I have a daemon process running using the Django ORM API to access/
modify tables in PostgreSQL. I just ran into an issue where it looks
like the process is keeping read-locks on the tables that it is
reading, which is preventing a subsequent write lock from granting.
Does the ORM API nor
5 matches
Mail list logo
