On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 15:41 -0500, Michael Bayer wrote: > 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.
I agree with the current behaviour. I've never actually thought of execute as doing anything other than *exactly* what I want it to do - and only that. > > 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.
