#33882: Allow transaction.atomic to work in async contexts. -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: alex | Owner: | rajdesai24 Type: New feature | Status: assigned Component: Database layer | Version: 4.0 (models, ORM) | Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: async | Triage Stage: Accepted Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0 Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0 Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0 -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Mike Lissner): I'm quite bad at async things generally, but I thought I'd chime in to say that I'm surprised async atomic transactions aren't more of a priority. A few of the comments above seem to imply that this isn't an important feature or that it's an antipattern (maybe?). I just turned down part of a PR where a developer is converting our code to async because to do so required that we drop the @transaction.atomic decorator. I said, "Sorry, we can't covert this to async because given the choice between correctness and performance, I have to choose correctness." Am I missing something big — Isn't this a big gap in Django's support for real applications converting fully to async? Thanks all, sorry I don't have more to add! If I were better at async, I'd take a crack at actually fixing it. -- Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33882#comment:14> Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/> The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django updates" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018ac31c9484-ac7bfdba-b162-4a66-9c61-ad67076ba611-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.