in the ResultProxy three
frames from the bottom.
Suggestions? Thanks in advance,
--
Luis Bruno
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy
._sa_class_manager.keys() instead?
items = dict()
for field in self._sa_class_manager.keys():
items[field] = getattr(self, field)
Is there a simpler way, perhaps?
Thanks,
--
Luis Bruno
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Michael Bayer escreveu:
Luis Bruno wrote:
items = dict()
for field in self._sa_class_manager.keys():
items[field] = getattr(self, field)
Is there a simpler way, perhaps?
obj.__dict__ is available as always for reading, I'd think thats the
easiest way to get at current object
Hi, semi-lurker here,
I'm using pyodbc, by the way. I had to comment out ``table.schema =
queer`` before calling metadata.create_all() because MSSQL blows up:
File
c:\python24\lib\site-packages\sqlalchemy-0.4.5-py2.4.egg\sqlalchemy\data
bases\mssql.py, line 499, in do_execute
easy_install pymssql*.exe would have put ntwdblib.dll
inside the .egg directory; that was a false start. Also, pymssql+SA
doesn't support SSPI authentication using the syntax presented earlier:
mssql://:@host/db
Luis Bruno wrote:
File
c:\python24\lib\site-packages\sqlalchemy-0.4.5-py2.4.egg
Paul Johnston escreveu:
This isn't an SQLAlchemy or DBAPI issue - you just need to create the
schema with the correct permissions.
True; I've already solved the problem, after I got this (much better)
error message by using pymssql. The first traceback:
* happened in a SET IDENTITY ...
Rick Morrison escreveu:
So now I'm of two minds about which module to use and if I should use
a schema or not for these porposes.
There's a few arcane limitations when using the pymssql module, pyodbc
will be better-supported going into the future. As for using schema vs.
other namespace
Seems I'm not the only one bitten by this. I need some pointers on how
to debug this. For the record, I agree with the 0.4.3 change that
explicitly raises these errors when an inactive transaction is acted
upon.
What I want is a way to find the correct spot so I can make a smaller
test-case, as
