its not clear to me that we're continuously tweaking things to suit new
releases, as much as the PG folks considered the query we had in place to be
incorrect in the first place (there's a thread somewhere to this effect I'd
have to search for). The info schema views can't be relied upon 100%
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Michael Bayer wrote:
> that bug is fixed, you can get the tip at
> http://hg.sqlalchemy.org/sqlalchemy/archive/default.tar.gz .
Cool.
Regarding the issues surrounding postgresql introspection and the
information_schema -- perhaps if patches were offered to
correc
that bug is fixed, you can get the tip at
http://hg.sqlalchemy.org/sqlalchemy/archive/default.tar.gz .
On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:08 AM, rdunklau wrote:
> Thanks for everything.
>
> On 5 oct, 16:39, Michael Bayer wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:58 AM, rdunklau wrote:
>>
>>
>>
the correct va
Thanks for everything.
On 5 oct, 16:39, Michael Bayer wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:58 AM, rdunklau wrote:
>
>
>
> >> the correct value "t_id" is returned.
>
> > I ran this exact same test on my postgresql 9.1.1 install, and it
> > fails.
>
> OK then its a PG 9 thing. We had an almost identical
On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:58 AM, rdunklau wrote:
>>
>> the correct value "t_id" is returned.
>
> I ran this exact same test on my postgresql 9.1.1 install, and it
> fails.
OK then its a PG 9 thing. We had an almost identical issue involving indexes
and this is likely the same thing, this bug can
