On 2017-03-07 07:17, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > It's certainly _possible_ to implement a in-memory datastore, and > it might be pretty useful. It's just pretty dang hard to do more > than the first 20% or so.
Would there also be issues with WSGI spinning up/down various Django processes? Any in-memory (in-process) data would be lost when the process goes down. I could see it working for an individual dev server or if you could guarantee that a single WSGI process remains running indefinitely. But for those, I'd just go with sqlite's ":memory:" option. -tkc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20170307101615.48bb1a00%40bigbox.christie.dr. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
