On 22 sept. 2013, at 20:38, Shai Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > I would take Anssi's suggestion another step forward -- or backward, depends > where you're looking from :-) -- stop marking transactions for rollback. Make > save() and associates use savepoints, only on PostgreSQL, so that, > everywhere, > one may recover from database errors within the transaction.
The extra queries for the savepoints will break all tests that use assertNumQueries — well, all except assertNumQueries(0). How do you propose to deal with that. > (I am intimately familiar with a large code base that is full of such > recovery > attempts, mainly because PostgreSQL has never been a primary target; on > Sqlite, Oracle and SQL Server, these things work fine. I'm sure the case I > know > isn't the only one). Is this code base relying on Django's transaction management? In other words is it using `commit_on_success` or `atomic` to manage transactions? -- Aymeric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
