> This solves my case. Bummer I've found that out just now. Anyway,
> thought this post might help a bloke or two...
No need to worry, should help some blokes mainly because that design
decision usually is not self-evident (single session for multiple
threads contra a session-per-thread will (rawly) mean: locking at
application level contra DB level locking - and when the tables are
exclusively for your application, you have the free choice.) So if the
"one session per thread"- way should turn out to be bad - please post
a followup, to help even more blokes ;-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
