it is 100% expected yes. its generally not a good idea to specify any caching for a particular entity type in a particular request where you expect to be getting fresh data from the DB for that entity type.
On May 7, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Ergo wrote: > ok, i THINK i understand whats going on... i reproduced it and i think > i understand whats going on since i was able to track the problem by > restarting memcache and noticing that it gives me right values: > its kinda deceiving at first, i do a request in application: > > lets assume we have a users table with rows A,B,C,D,E > > and in application i first do User.by_id(A) - which will cache or > fetch cached object with beaker - user A is a logged user that is > fetched every request, > > now lets say i go to some database frontend like pgadmin3 and change > "foo" column for A,B,C,D,E. > > then for some report i do > meta.Session.query(User).order_by(User.username).limit(30) to fetch > all users. > > i get users B,C,D,E with new values of foo that i changed for them, > but for user A on other hand foo has the value from the moment when i > fetched him with by_id. > > So in my query results for some reason i got instance if User object A > which i fetched earlier and got cached. > > Now i understand the problem, is this 100% expected behaviour ? > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
