using uWSGI 1.0.4 for reference On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:43:26 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > 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]> 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]. >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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.
