From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Otto Vazquez <otto(dot)vazquez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: connection lost with concurrent transactions |
Date: | 2011-05-13 16:46:50 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=CUqPZRcdNamz0DbMo5pASWz3y1A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | psycopg |
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Otto Vazquez <otto(dot)vazquez(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OperationalError: no connection to the server
> We believe it's a connector problem, just google a little and you will find
> lots a posts with same/similar problem.
> Some other useful info/samples:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1303654/threaded-django-task-doesnt-automatically-handle-transactions-or-db-connections
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/5249b9ba993431ca/4d1b9d65329c8b75
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9964
Actually it doesn't seem the same issue to me. IIRC with the django
issue you get long running transactions. A possible consequence may be
getting errors like "current transaction is aborted...". But "no
connection to the server" is an error message I have never seen. I
wouldn't even know how to reproduce it just using psycopg: if you
issue a rollback() on a closed connection you don't get that error,
but rather a clean "InterfaceError: connection already closed".
Do you have any middleware software (pgpool etc.) handling the
connection used by psycopg? Anything interfering with the socket?
-- Daniele
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | maplabs | 2011-05-13 17:49:42 | Re: connection lost with concurrent transactions |
Previous Message | Israel Ben Guilherme Fonseca | 2011-05-13 16:33:40 | Re: Input and Output data traffic |