to keep the current behavior...though that name
probably isn't very good, but flush_when_pending_on_read is too long ;).
Does that sound like a reasonable idea? You don't have to commit to any
work if you don't want, I wouldn't mind trying my hand at it if necessary.
Thanks,
-Adam Batkin
.
...something like a 'mini-flush'.
Almost, except I would want it to only flush if I tried to access a
db-generated attribute. The normal lazy behavior otherwise makes
perfect sense to me.
-Adam Batkin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
the
next value from a sequence) when the id property is retrieved.
Thoughts?
-Adam Batkin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
, since id was never retrieved.
(if I just did:
obj = Something('blah')
print Bad idea: %s % obj
then I would expect an exception, since it's not saved)
Does this description make more sense that what I said before?
-Adam Batkin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
(s1)
s2 = Something('foo2')
session.save(s2)
# Nothing flushed yet
s3 = Something('foo3')
session.save(s3)
url_for_foo = /something?id=%d % s3.id
# s3 should be flushed, nothing else though (since s3.id was accessed)
-Adam Batkin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
