Closing the loop here -- Tim just 
reopened https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/470.

This feature would also be useful for achieving zero-downtime migrations, 
as discussed in https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29266.

Sounds like the design has mostly been agreed -- would a PR be accepted 
that just implements the simple `db_default` field without attempting 
PostgreSQL RETURNING or database functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP), and just 
provides static defaults?

Cheers,
Paul

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 2:08:39 AM UTC-7, Shai Berger wrote:
>
> Hi everybody, 
>
> Waking this up again because, going over some older stuff, I found a 
> ticket 
> asking for this feature: 
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/470 
>
> It was closed wontfix, but if anybody likes to put a 3-digit-numbered 
> Django 
> bug under their belt, it's there. The discussion in this thread would 
> indicate 
> that it should be re-opened. 
>
> Shai. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0918d753-2d98-4731-8180-922cc8e1d1d9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to