ot even going to talk about the repercussions of using this
approach with a ThreadPoolExecutor/ProcessPoolExecutor from within a view.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 2:48:27 AM UTC+5:30 Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2021, at 07:49, N Aditya wrote:
>
> Below are
e best possible
way.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:02:35 AM UTC+5:30 Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 1 Jun 2021, at 14:35, N Aditya wrote:
>
> All I'm looking for is a hook that the transaction APIs can call before
> deciding on which database
or fallback to the default behaviour.
Also, something I'd like to clarify is that my use-case for a hook such as
*db_for_transaction* is different. You could read above to know more about
this.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 11:34:55 PM UTC+5:30 lokeshw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
explicitly.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:32:44 PM UTC+5:30 f.apo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 2:35:17 PM UTC+2 gojeta...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see any reason for why providing a hook seems so difficult.
>>
>
> It is more code
s looks like the closest option to the
> intent you expressed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
>
>
> On 1 Jun 2021, at 12:09, N Aditya wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I believe there's a major misunderstanding of what I've been trying to
> convey. Le
or the CACHES dictionary would
run into connection leaks/KeyErrors with such an approach.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:04 PM Florian Apolloner
wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 12:13:58 PM UTC+2 Adam Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm also -1 on changing anything
Hey Adam/Simon,
How can we take this forward ?
Regards,
Aditya N
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 3:04:14 PM UTC+5:30 N Aditya wrote:
> Hey Adam,
>
> Also, after giving it a bit of thought, I figured that integrating this
> logic with the routers framework isn't entirely necessary.
know your thoughts on the same.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 2:55:02 PM UTC+5:30 N Aditya wrote:
> Hey Adam,
>
> "atomic does already call DB routers" -> Firstly after reading code, I
> don't think the transaction APIs consult the routers. Secon
info that can be
delivered to the transaction based on which a decision regd which DB to use
could be made, then it would be cleanly isolated into its own method.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 2:03:16 PM UTC+5:30 Adam Johnson wrote:
> Aditya - you didn't answer Simon's firs
saction_db_selector()
if using is None:
using = DEFAULT_DB_ALIAS
return connections[using]
Let me know your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Aditya N
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC+5:30 charettes wrote:
> Ticket that directed to the mailing list for w
>From the Django docs, for any ORM query made, the DB alias to use is
determined by the following rules:
- Checks if the using keyword is used either as a parameter in the
function call or chained with QuerySet.
- Consults the DB routers in order until a match is found.
- Falls
Mar 14, 6:27 am, James Bennett <ubernost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:39 PM, aditya <bluemangrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The trouble is, there is no straightforward way to configure the name
> > and domain of a site.
>
> Sure there is: create a Si
A fixture won't really solve the problem. I'm okay with Gabriel's
solution though. It is not as simple as my proposal, but certainly
more elegant.
Aditya
On Mar 13, 6:57 am, Chuck Harmston <ch...@chuckharmston.com> wrote:
> This particular use case (having predefined sets of informati
Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean.
Aditya
On Mar 12, 5:26 pm, Gabriel Hurley <gab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to be missing the point of the code you reference above. You
> should probably read up on the "Sites" framework that ships w
Description
=
This page of the Django documentation shows how to use the 'Sites'
framework to get the domain of the current site:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/sites/
I've noticed that 'domain = Site.objects.get_current().domain' is
becoming a common idiom in Django.
for any help you all can provide!
Aditya
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developer
Got it. Thanks.
On Jan 9, 1:32 pm, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:24 PM, aditya <bluemangrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From what I can see, the following ticket:
>
> >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4092
>
> > is a
>From what I can see, the following ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4092
is addressing the same issue as this ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10969
Ticket #10969 is closed, but ticket #4092 is still marked as "new".
Can we close #4092?
Aditya
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
