Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Circumventing thread-local sessions

2006-04-07 Thread Daniel Miller
Michael Bayer wrote: On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:41 PM, dmiller wrote: Does this mean I don't need to use mapper.using(...).select(...) to execute a query on a session anymore? i.e. I could do mapper.select(session=x, ...) oh...well, I actually just committed the big change, since after

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] mapper and update of primary_key

2006-04-07 Thread Michael Bayer
you generally shouldnt store any information in a primary key. primary keys are by definition immutable so SA would likely trip up if you change them. its conceivable that a feature could be added to allow updating the primary key columns but it would add a lot of complexity to the saving

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Saving out of order?

2006-04-07 Thread Michael Bayer
because the join condition is on two primary key columns, the fact that they are primary keys is overriding the fact that one of them is a foreign key and its determining the direction of the relationship improperly. if you give it a clue as to which side of the join is the foreignkey like this,

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Transactions and Sessions, proposal #2

2006-04-07 Thread Michael Bayer
its in the __del__ method of ConnectionFairy in pool.py, which can be propigated out to whatever other connection-holding object there is (such as this one i am still coming up with). so del connection is how to force the reference count down to zero. but if jython isnt going to work

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Transactions and Sessions, proposal #2

2006-04-07 Thread Brad Clements
On 7 Apr 2006 at 19:00, Michael Bayer wrote: the moral of the story is, if del object takes the reference count down to zero, but Jython is still not going to call __del__ despite this, then the connection pooling in SA needs some major changes to explicitly count checkouts within the same