On 3/10/07, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well initial response to this post has been overwhelmingly low, but
thats fine with me. After trying to tackle this today, I realized
that I actually didnt want to add a brand new query object and go
through a painful deprecation procedure
I needed to change the connectionstring to use integrated security
anyway),
FWIW if someone were to be able to review / commit my patch
on ticket 488 (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/ticket/488)
the integrated security would be there anyway. Haven't
got round to patching the SCOPE_IDENTITY
table = Table('boo', metadata,
Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
mysql_engine='InnoDB')
When sqlalchemy creates the table, MySQL generates a warning cause
sqlalchemy is using TYPE='InnoDB' which is deprecated.
It should be using ENGINE='InnoDB'.
I like it all!
Arnar
On 3/10/07, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well initial response to this post has been overwhelmingly low, but
thats fine with me. After trying to tackle this today, I realized
that I actually didnt want to add a brand new query object and go
through a
in at least version 0.3.5, it passes through whatever is after
mysql_. so mysql_engine will pass through ENGINE.
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Rene Rattur wrote:
table = Table('boo', metadata,
Column('id', Integer, primary_key=True),
mysql_engine='InnoDB')
When sqlalchemy creates
then you have to look up an existing Category and use that.
theres a recipe to make this automatic:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/wiki/UsageRecipes/UniqueObject
On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:29 AM, sqad wrote:
I have 2 tables.
One that maps categories (schema: Category) that are created/
Yeah I guess I'm running 0.3.3 or something, got to checkout the newest
version :)
On 3/10/07, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in at least version 0.3.5, it passes through whatever is after
mysql_. so mysql_engine will pass through ENGINE.
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Rene Rattur
Module selection in MSSQL is a bit ugly right
now. Mike has proposed a clean-up of the way that DB-API modules are loaded
and used, so this will get better soon, I hope.
I'll have a look at the patch.
Rick
On 3/9/07, polaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but I'm starting to think I'm doing
who can read japanese ???
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20070302.html#p04
we've been noticed
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to
babelfish.altavista.com (JP to EN):
_SQLAlchemy - The Database Toolkit for Python
The library which synthesizes SQL from usual system. As for such
technology you think that well enough it is convenient.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
who can read japanese ???
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/20070302.html#p04
we've been noticed
hey oraclers -
turns out I was underestimating cx_Oracle in the last go-around with
storing BLOBs, and it actually is possible to store any number of
blobs in one row with any size (or at least ive tested in the 10s of
Ks). During an INSERT, there was a glitch whereby it wasnt pulling in
Michael Bayer wrote:
my only concern is that you now have more than one way to do it. i
need to deal with things in the identity map. do i go look at the
session.identity_map ? (which is documented, its part of the public
API) oh no, i dont have the exact kind of key to use, now i have to
13 matches
Mail list logo
