In case anyone tries to use the compile visitor below, I'll document a
couple snags I ran into. For now, I think I'm satisfied to go back to
my original patch and deal with any merge conflicts during upgrades.
The hook has false positives when it runs on inner queries that
correlate to
her anyone has permission to do X to Y.
The compile hook looks great and I will take a look at the test failures
caused by reliance on these features in the ORM, if only to see whether
we use or foresee using those features.
- Dave
On 6/24/2017 5:33 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
On 06/24/2017 10:5
Hi all,
I'll start with an example. Assume A and B are Table objects:
>>> print select([A.id], from_obj=[A], whereclause=(B.field == 123))
SELECT A.id FROM A, B WHERE B.id = 123
As a convenience, sqlalchemy has added B to the FROM clause on the
assumption that I meant to do this.
However,
Hi all,
I'm using sqlalchemy 0.9.7 (yes, I know we need to upgrade).
I've recently started to employ psycopg2's
psycopg2.extensions.set_wait_callback function to facilitate terminating
ongoing queries in response to activity on other sockets (such as an
HTTP client disconnect or shutdown
Hi all,
I've come across what I'm pretty sure is a bug with contains_eager when
there are multiple joinpaths leading to the same row, and only some of
those joinpaths are using contains_eager all they way down the joinpath.
I've prepared a test case:
http://pastebin.com/CbyUMdqC
See the
At least one database (postgres) has a pub/sub messaging facility
(NOTIFY/LISTEN) that you can use to do this. See the postgres docs. We
use this extensively.
On the listen end, you basically want to get down to the psycopg layer,
because sqlalchemy's layers aren't going to be helpful.
1.
self)
def load_scalar_from_joined_exec(state, dict_, row):
_instance(row, None)
- Dave
On 9/2/2015 7:29 PM, Dave Vitek wrote:
Hi all,
I've come across what I'm pretty sure is a bug with contains_eager
when there are multiple joinpaths leading to the same row, and only
som
On 9/2/2015 10:08 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
On 9/2/15 9:57 PM, Dave Vitek wrote:
Answering my own question.
Here's a patch that seems to fix it, but I am uncertain about whether
it breaks other things. Use at your own risk, at least until someone
more familiar with this code evaluates
