On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Dave Vitek wrote:
> 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 positi
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 tables
On 06/25/2017 12:15 PM, Dave Vitek wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for the thorough feedback. It isn't surprising that there's a lot
of code out there relying on the current behavior, but internal
sqlalchemy reliance is certainly problematic. It sounds difficult to
walk back the existing behavior at t
Mike,
Thanks for the thorough feedback. It isn't surprising that there's a lot
of code out there relying on the current behavior, but internal
sqlalchemy reliance is certainly problematic. It sounds difficult to
walk back the existing behavior at this point and I understand the
apprehension
On 06/24/2017 10:53 AM, Dave Vitek wrote:
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
as
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, i
