23 Jul
2005
23 Jul
'05
10 a.m.
On 07/22/05 20:54, Michael Ulitskiy wrote:
On Friday 22 July 2005 01:06 pm, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla wrote:
The review explicitly mentions the migration to the memory manager used
by ser.
Sorry, it wasn't clear for me that this is about connection pool implementation.
because I have no much knowledge about this module -- the stuff about
the memory manager I discovered when Ingo Wolfsberger told us about a
lot of warnings issued by this module. But when it is going to be
reviewed, it should be aligned to latest DB API (implemented now by
mysql module).
Daniel
>Hello,
>
>I've asked this question in serusers and serdevel. Noone answered,
>so I thought I'd ask it here about openser.
>I haven't tried openser yet, it's on my todo list.
>I saw that openser implemented connection pool for mysql backend.
>What about postgres?
>
>
>
>
>
The maintainer of this module has not implemented the connection pool
yet. It was no activity for quite some time of postgres module,but now
seems that many users started using it, so we have put it in the roadmap
to review. Unfortunately I have no experience with postgres, so the
priority is quite low in my list.
I see. That's a pity. BTW I can't find it in the roadmap available online.
sorry, that was a misleading info from my side, I
was thinking to a
wrong bitmask present in openser. You can start as many as children you
want.
Thanks for the info.
Daniel