Exactly... I guess I was just asking for someone to say 'Don't use this if
you think it will make the update any faster on Postgres' in the docs... in
addition to what you just said :)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> The major help is preventing clobbering a value for conc
The major help is preventing clobbering a value for concurrency.
Prior to this when you loaded an object from SQL into a django model, it would
fetch all the values
as they were at that time, and store them in the model instance. Then when you
saved it it would
write all those values back out to
I was just writing some code against 1.5 and thought I might use the new
.save(update_fields=['xyz']) then I realized I was using PostgreSQL - which
is an MVCC... which re-writes the entire row as far as I know even when one
column is being updated.
I popped into the release notes and it does i
The canonical way of handling this so as not to leak information like that is
to do exactly the same thing UX wise for success and failures, and just update
the message to state that if an email address by that account has been
registered they will get an email soon.
On Friday, November 2, 20
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> > If anyone has any major objections to the deprecation of depth, you
> should
> > shout now. If there are no objections and people think it's ok to push
> this
> > deprecation in now,
Hi Lee,
What you propose certainly sounds reasonable -- anything that reduces the
exposure of valid accounts to an external source is a good thing, IMHO.
Did you have an alternative wording to suggest? If you do, please open a
ticket.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Lee Tr
Taavi Taijala has written a tutorial for new contributors that I've given
an initial review. I'm hoping we can get a few more sets of eyes on it.
Might be useful to pass it on to any newbies you know and have them try it
out as well. Thanks!
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16779
--
Y
Hi,
They are (now) all there and signed with the release key:
https://github.com/django/django/tags -- Please tell us if we missed
something!
Thx,
Florian
On Friday, November 2, 2012 5:17:25 AM UTC+1, Samus_ wrote:
>
> hi, I think that's great :) in the meantime could you please indicate the
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> If anyone has any major objections to the deprecation of depth, you should
> shout now. If there are no objections and people think it's ok to push this
> deprecation in now, then I'll get a patch done on Monday.
No objections here. Depth was a
Hi all,
The issue #16855 [1] tracks some unexpected behaviour in the chaining of
`Queryset.select_related`. It's been proving rather complex to get a patch
for this which works, mainly because of the complexity added by the depth
argument. It has been proposed (by Luke Plant) that depth be depr
Hi all,
I wasn't sure if it was best to open a ticket or post to the dev group so
here I am...
I was curious what others thought about changing the default error in the
PasswordResetForm which currently displays "That e-mail address doesn't
have an associated user account. Are you sure you've
11 matches
Mail list logo