#18100: Deleting model instances with deferred fields don't trigger deletion
signals
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: charettes | Owner: charettes
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: Database layer | Version: 1.4
(models, ORM) | Resolution:
Severity: Normal | Triage Stage: Accepted
Keywords: deferred delete | Needs documentation: 0
signals | Patch needs improvement: 0
Has patch: 1 | UI/UX: 0
Needs tests: 0 |
Easy pickings: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by carljm):
Replying to [comment:5 charettes]:
> Even if #9318 is fixed we wan't to avoid dispatching signals for the
`DeferredFieldProxy` for performance reasons.
>
> Anyway what's the use case of dispatching it since no one can really
subscribe? IMHO we should really avoid doing so.
There's not a use case for it, clearly, but there is code-maintainability
value in not having to think about this special case whenever we fire
model signals.
The performance concern is relevant if #9318 is fixed by firing signals
multiple times (in that case I agree that we should fix this), but not if
it's fixed in the signals framework itself, to fire the signal only once
but include superclass receivers.
I don't feel strongly about _not_ doing this, but I do think that if we do
fix it, we should fix it consistently for all model signals.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/18100#comment:6>
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 post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-updates?hl=en.
