On Sep 9, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jean-Philippe Dutreve wrote:
> I prefer put constraints in database rather than in application/ > framework because several applications can access > the same database and applications can gone quicker than DB. The ORM doesnt get in the way of your placing appropriate constraints on the DB. The reason SA very much wants to maintain referential integrity itself only applies to those objects which are currently present in the session; and its that it wants the session to mirror what's in the database without having to issue extra queries to see what the constraints have fired off. With passive_deletes=True, it wont add the overhead of loading anything additional (i.e. things that are not already in the session) during a delete operation. The passive_deletes="all" option I just added will, depending on usage, produce a session that is not in sync with what the database actually has. Other people have asked for the "dont set NULL" behavior as well, since its just a small conditional it wasnt a big deal to add (but i bet nobody will use it unless they have some triggering scenario in place). in your case, yes a NOT NULL FK is probably the more straightforward way to go but feel free to try out the flag. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
