Strange. We use Postgres and don't see any problem with this. We do encounter complications occasionally with the lack of composition of Django transaction handling, but other than that find the transaction handling adequate.
Are you actually using transactions in your code? You need to be. The transaction middleware does a good enough job for most things, but for external processing you will need to carefully design your transaction handling. With the transaction middleware we see fully isolated updates until the transaction is committed using psycopg2. Kirit On Sep 5, 6:52 pm, Patryk Zawadzki <pat...@pld-linux.org> wrote: > The problem is that this is not true for Django. The backend > initializes the meta-transaction at connection time and never bothers > to terminate it. As the transaction is merely a ghost-read-preventing > one, it does not stop data from being saved in the database, but it > does result in a parmanently open transaction. This both wastes > resources on the server and prevents any other client from touching > the database structure (any ALTER or VACUUM command will hang waiting > for the remaining transactions to finish). > > The ticket contains a naïve workaround but as described there, I feel > a proper solution would look like this: > > 1. Introduce IsolationMiddleware that does something like this (pseudocode): [snip] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
