I think this is more likely the real bug, I saw an increase in database connections as well.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/django-users/FxTD5M0x-G8 On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 8:06:18 AM UTC-6, Andy Dustman wrote: > > You know, I had another report of this, which seemed completely > improbable: > https://plus.google.com/u/0/101898908470597791359/posts/AuMJdgEo93k > > Maybe it's related to a bug in Django 1.5 that was fixed in 1.5.1? > https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2013/mar/28/django-151/ > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I would say its definitely not isolation level, as restarting the django >> instance made this issue go away for a few hours. I would setup a test for >> this, but don't really know if there already exist any per thread tests for >> django sanity I could look at for examples. >> >> >> The caching change is about related models, this doesn't use any real >> related models, it does use them through the .values() call. Maybe this is >> a side affect of that caching, but that mentions nothing about the caching >> persisting past a single request. If that actually happens, i'm sure many >> people using django 1.5 are going to run into all kinds of data loss >> scenarios. >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:09:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Johnson wrote: >>> >>> It's tough to know what the deal is without any info on your code or >>> database, but two things come to mind. One is some of the new caching in >>> Django 1.5 for related models (https://docs.djangoproject.** >>> com/en/dev/releases/1.5/#**caching-of-related-model-**instances<https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.5/#caching-of-related-model-instances>), >>> >>> and the other is database isolation level (e.g. for Postgres: >>> http://www.**postgresql.org/docs/9.1/**static/transaction-iso.html<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/transaction-iso.html> >>> ) >>> >>> On Monday, April 1, 2013 9:40:08 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> So I have some stats reports that I run that it almost seems as if each >>>> thread has its own queryset cached. Each time I refresh they change. I'm >>>> going to revert back to 1.4 due to this bug. I wish I could come up with >>>> a >>>> simple example, to demonstrate this, the problem is that the underlying >>>> database needs to change between the time each thread serves a request. >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > > -- > Question the answers > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
