Thanks, bojanb. The patch kinda worked - after some trying I guessed the magic combination of cascade,passive_deletes and bakref placement on one instance. But it doesn't work on other relationship - looks like I'd have to play try-fail-guess game again. To the authors of SQLAlchemy - why is it so difficult to make it do such a simple thing - DO NOTHING???
On Nov 17, 11:14 am, bojanb <boj...@gmail.com> wrote: > You probably want to add passive_deletes='all' to the above relation. > > Be sure to put it into the right side of the relation (e.g. if you're > defining the relation in B's mapper put it there, but if you're > defining it in A's mapper put it in the backref). > Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy/browse_thread/thread/3a2842.... > > On Nov 17, 4:43 pm, kwarg <ekozh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have a one-to-many object relation, A-to-B. > > When an instance of A with several Bs is created it needs to be > > persisted by SQLAlchemy. I have that via save-update rule. But when I > > delete an A I DON'T WANT SQLAlchemy to do anything to its Bs - it's > > taken care of by foreign key constraints in the DB. Instead it deletes > > them explicitly if there's a delete cascade rule or tries to nullify > > Bs' FK fields for any other cascade rule combination.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@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.
