On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi David, > > On 7/24/2017 8:18 AM, David Storrs wrote: > > What happens in the following code? > > (define dbh (postgresql-connect ...)) > > ;; Use the DBH in a new thread > (thread (thunk > (while ...some long-running condition... > (sleep 1) ; don't flood the DB > (query-exec dbh "insert into users ...")))) > > ;; And in the main thread > (query-exec dbh ...) > > I now have a database object that's being shared between two threads, > yes? Or is the object copied when the new thread is created and, if so, > what will that do to the underlying connection to the DB? > > > The single DBMS connection is being shared by the 2 threads. That's a > recipe for disaster if both try to use it simultaneously. > > > New scenario: > > (define dbh (postgresql-connect ...)) > (define current-dbh (make-parameter dbh)) > (query-value (current-dbh) "select ...") > (sleep 1000000) > (query-value (current-dbh) "select ...") > > I would expect the first query-value to work but by the time the second > runs the handle has probably been disconnected by the database and the > query will throw an exception. Am I understanding that properly? > > > After sleeping 11.6 days? Probably. But it depends on the connection > keep-alive settings. By default, Postgresql uses the OS settings, which > are roughly ~130 minutes assuming that the client understands and > participates [which Racket does]. However, on most systems, keep-alive > timeouts can be set far higher. > > Aside: I'm not aware of any published limits on keep-alive settings, only > the defaults are known for various systems. If the settings are just > integral seconds and counts, and (theoretically) could go to MAX_INT, that > would represent ~3^20 years on a 32-bit machine ... for all practical > purposes, infinite. > > > Final scenario, identical to the previous except that the parameter is a > promise: > (define dbh (postgresql-connect ...)) > (define current-dbh (make-parameter (delay dbh))) > (query-value (force (current-dbh)) "select ...") > (sleep 1000000) > (query-value (force (current-dbh)) "select ...") > > Would this make any difference? I can't see why but thought I should ask. > > > There's no difference wrt the above. You aren't delaying the *opening* of > the connection - you are simply performing unnecessary gyrations to get at > the handle. There would be a difference if instead you wrote: > > (define dbh (delay (postgresql-connect ...))) > (define current-dbh (make-parameter dbh)) > (query-value (force (current-dbh)) "select ...") > (sleep ...) > (query-value (force (current-dbh)) "select ...") > > which would try to open the connection at the point of each query. > However, at the 2nd query, if the connection were still open due to > keep-alive, the repeated open attempt might fail. > > > George > Okay, good. That's all as I expected. Thanks, George. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
