On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:52 AM, Eric Ongerth wrote:
> > If I had to guess, maybe this 3-way split of secondary/association > tables is the thing that might be causing problems. I set it up > that way to keep a strong, up-front distinction between events > being in an item's future vs. its present case vs. its past. But I > suppose I could actually achieve the same thing with all > gearset<>item associations being in a single table, and just map > the item's future/current/past to separate selects on that table. > Right? > thats definitely where the issue is, since its a many-to-many delete raising the error. however the mapping seems fine; the secondary tables are distinct in each relationship. so its possibly something related to the backrefs upon a single m2m table, although the bi- directional m2m relationships communicate with each other to avoid this conflict. turn on echo_uow=True on your session to possibly shed some hints on this, as well as attempt removing the backrefs/other relationships to see the point at which it fails. else Ill have a look at it sometime tonight or tomorrow. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
