You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was experiencing several issues with Pool in production due to read ECONNRESET error and I finally found the response in this Github Issue: #683 (and, by the way, thanks to all for the amazing work done and the patience in debugging it! ;) )
So, I have updated from 2.0.1 to 2.2.5 (latest right now), but I found something strange. Looking at the code it seems that the new PoolConfig property enableKeepAlive is never actually queried.
I found this piece of code that I think should read this property:
But as you can see the function is always called with a hardcoded true.
Now, this is fine with me, because I was about to enable it anyway, but my question is: is this intentional? Am I missing some obvious bit of code?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
hm, looks like this is side effect of #1086 . see #1081 (comment) for reasons why it was added but to me looks like it should be moved inside if (this.config.enableKeepAlive) {} block
…keepalive on the network connection. If not set, it defaults to false.
Resolves issue sidorares#1229 - Pool option "enableKeepAlive" is ignored?
sidorares#1229
Hi all!
I was experiencing several issues with Pool in production due to
read ECONNRESET
error and I finally found the response in this Github Issue: #683 (and, by the way, thanks to all for the amazing work done and the patience in debugging it! ;) )So, I have updated from
2.0.1
to2.2.5
(latest right now), but I found something strange. Looking at the code it seems that the new PoolConfig propertyenableKeepAlive
is never actually queried.I found this piece of code that I think should read this property:
node-mysql2/lib/connection.js
Line 42 in 2be0eb6
But as you can see the function is always called with a hardcoded
true
.Now, this is fine with me, because I was about to enable it anyway, but my question is: is this intentional? Am I missing some obvious bit of code?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: