On Aug 26, 6:01 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 8:53 PM, chris e wrote:
I just checked the trunk, it the same reflection code is in place, as
far as the column length is concerned.
To me the question is, should sqlalchemy be aware of Char vs Byte
If we prefer it to be characters, then we should probably use
CHAR_LENGTH instead of DATA_LENGHT when reflecting, and add the CHAR
specifier to the column generators. I can put together a patch if that
helps.
On Aug 27, 10:02 am, jek jason.kirtl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:01 pm,
On Aug 26, 2009, at 6:56 PM, chris e wrote:
I noticed that with reflection, my column lengths seems to be
incorrect for varchar2, and char columns that are using char storage
instead of byte storage.
I.E. a VARCHAR2(400 CHAR) colum, is reported to have a length of 1600
by sqlalchemy, as
I just checked the trunk, it the same reflection code is in place, as
far as the column length is concerned.
To me the question is, should sqlalchemy be aware of Char vs Byte
storage?
Is VARCHAR2(400) the same as VARCHAR2(100 CHAR), by storage size it
is, but do we want storage size or number
On Aug 26, 2009, at 8:53 PM, chris e wrote:
I just checked the trunk, it the same reflection code is in place, as
far as the column length is concerned.
To me the question is, should sqlalchemy be aware of Char vs Byte
storage?
Is VARCHAR2(400) the same as VARCHAR2(100 CHAR), by storage
The issue I'm having with the length is that I have a verification
layer written in a mapper extension that verifies the length of what
the user is inserting based on the field length. Guess I'll have to
convert to bytes to determine the actual length of the data to be
inserted.
On Aug 26, 6:01
