On Apr 11, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Rick Morrison wrote:
> So I was up until 2:30am last night chasing down what looked like a > huge memory leak in our app, and it turned out to be what I think > is a bug in the way that SA maps the in_() function to SQL syntax. > > Most of the way it works is great: > > >> col.in_(v1, v2, v2) > COL IN (v1, v2, v3) > >> col.in_(v1) > COL = v1 > > but this one: > > >> col.in_() > COL IS NULL > it has two "optimizations" like this in there....if you say col.in_ (x) it generates "col == x". i dont think i have a problem whacking both of those and having it just say "IN" in all cases. we also have some open tickets for "IN" involving binds that i havent gotten around to. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
