I wouldn't say its a "bug" since its intentional. But I'll grant the intention is up for debate. I've always considered usage of execute() to mean, you're going below the level of the ORM and would like to control the SQL interaction directly, not to mention with as minimal overhead as possible, which is why it works that way currently. It might be just as surprising to many users if execute() issued a whole series of insert/update statements as much as it was apparently surprising to you that it did not.
On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Emmanuel Cazenave wrote: > Hi, > > In a session which has some dirty objects, doing > session.execute(sql_statement) doesn't not flush the dirty objects to > the database before executing the sql_statement query. > > The session was initialized with autoflush=True. > > Is it the expected behaviour ? Is it a bug ? > > Thanks > > -- > 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.
