My initial thought is that the driver must pass the executemany parameters on to the server without changing the order of the parameters. Maybe that should be explicitly stated in the spec. Once the server has the parameters then I think the behaviour becomes DBMS dependent. I guess my philosophy is that the humble driver should just faithfully pass things back and forth while interfering as little as possible.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 19:09, Mike Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > > OK that's two "sure, let's absolve ourselves of this problem" responses :) > > any opinion on executemany() being less useful if this requirement is not > established, and/or encouraging DBAPI authors to at least *document* this > themselves and maybe *prefer* maintaining ordering ? > > > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023, at 1:54 PM, Erlend Egeberg Aasland wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 19:15, Mike Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: > > > […] The scope here is, should pep-249 add some verbiage: "the order in which > parameters are processed by executemany() should not be assumed to be in the > order the parameters were given". […] > > > Sounds good to me. > > Erlend > > > > _______________________________________________ > DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig _______________________________________________ DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
