> Okay, thanks for the report and the patch. We definitely want this
> functionality to work. I haven't used Apache::DBI recently, but the
> current code was working fine for me on mp1. Can you file this bug
> report and patch on the RT queue for Apache::DBI on CPAN? That would
> make it easie
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 00:43 +0100, Clinton Gormley wrote:
> That is now what I have seen in mp2. In fact the code that (according
> to the comments) is supposed to do that, does nothing but avoid
> connecting to the DB on the very first start. (when restart count == 1)
>
> The parent server immed
Apache::DBI overrides disconnect() to be a no-op, and
connect_cached()
doesn't. (But Apache::DBI doesn't do this during startup.)
It would be reasonable for Apache::DBI to provide a way for
applications
to call disconnect() and have it actually disconnect.
If you want another hack :-), ch
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:06:22PM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You have to expect certain basic things to work, and one of them is that a
> > connection which can't be ping'ed is not holding a table lock.
>
> I completely disagree. Here's
> > > For this purpose, "connected" and "pingable" are the same thing.
> >
> > Yes and no. If you can't ping the server, but the TCP socket is
> > still open, that means you essentially have this TCP connection to the
> > server that's not being used, in an open state, for the rest of the
lifet
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
DBI will replace it, removing all references to the one that failed to
ping, and it will go out of scope and get DESTROY'ed.
And what if you don't want to reconnect? The possibly still
connected, possibly not handle is still left around in {CachedKids}.
Why woul
Mark Galbreath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and...?
>
> ]:-)
And at this point it sounds like there's more resistance than
support for my particular flavour of bulletproofing of Apache::DBI, so I'm
not going to bother, but I'm more than happy to keep arguing about it. I
like a good argum
and...?
]:-)>>> Tyler MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01-Feb-06 17:06 PM >>
Yeah, I ditched Apache::DBI early in diagnosing this problem. Then Iwrote that hack to solve it, which is what has started this whole thread. Iwas happy just posting the hack and leaving it at that, but you guys keepeg
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And here's some more conjecture: What if the ping just times out
> > because the server is really, really busy?
> DBI will replace it, removing all references to the one that failed to
> ping, and it will go out of scope and get DESTROY'ed.
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 14:06 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> What if you
> can't ping the connection because of a temporary TCP/IP problem
[...]
> And here's some more conjecture: What if the ping just times out
> because the server is really, really busy?
DBI will replace it, removing
> Apache::DBI doesn't cache handles that you open during startup or
> prevent you from calling disconnect on them. If you have it loaded
> correctly and you don't call disconnect on handles opened in startup,
> you should see warnings about the handles being DESTROYed without
> disconnect. If yo
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes and no. If you can't ping the server, but the TCP socket is
> > still open, that means you essentially have this TCP connection to the
> > server that's not being used, in an open state, for the rest of the lifetime
> > of your apache server ins
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:22 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> The point here was that I *wanted* the disconnect() to take place.
> So I made sure Apache::DBI wasn't loaded when disconnect() was called before
> the fork, so that it wouldn't trump my attempt to disconnect the handle
> owned by th
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am opening a handle before apache forks. However, I was
> > able to verify that Apache::DBI wasn't loaded yet at that point (no
> > $INC{'Apache/DBI.pm'}), and I was issuing a disconnect() before the fork
> > took place.
> If Apache::DBI w
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:27 -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> I am opening a handle before apache forks. However, I was
> able to verify that Apache::DBI wasn't loaded yet at that point (no
> $INC{'Apache/DBI.pm'}), and I was issuing a disconnect() before the fork
> took place.
If Apac
Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never seen Apache::DBI or connect_cached return a dead handle. I
> have had problems in the past with forking apps where I get back a
> handle that still pings but has been shared across processes so it no
> longer really works. Were you doing s
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Apache::DBI and DBI's connect_cached both claim to keep your database
handles fresh and happy, but I've had numerous problems trying to get either
of them to work properly. If a database connection is dropped, sometimes I'd
have to refresh the page two or three times before
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:23:12PM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Apache::DBI and DBI's connect_cached both claim to keep your database
> handles fresh and happy, but I've had numerous problems trying to get either
> of them to work properly. If a database connection is dropped, sometimes I'd
> ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
