#33882: Allow transaction.atomic to work in async contexts.
     Reporter:  alex                 |                    Owner:
                                     |  rajdesai24
         Type:  New feature          |                   Status:  assigned
    Component:  Database layer       |                  Version:  4.0
  (models, ORM)                      |
     Severity:  Normal               |               Resolution:
     Keywords:  async                |             Triage Stage:  Accepted
    Has patch:  0                    |      Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0                    |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0                    |                    UI/UX:  0

Comment (by Mike Lissner):

 I'm quite bad at async things generally, but I thought I'd chime in to say
 that I'm surprised async atomic transactions aren't more of a priority. A
 few of the comments above seem to imply that this isn't an important
 feature or that it's an antipattern (maybe?).

 I just turned down part of a PR where a developer is converting our code
 to async because to do so required that we drop the @transaction.atomic
 decorator. I said,  "Sorry, we can't covert this to async because given
 the choice between correctness and performance, I have to choose

 Am I missing something big — Isn't this a big gap in Django's support for
 real applications converting fully to async?

 Thanks all, sorry I don't have more to add! If I were better at async, I'd
 take a crack at actually fixing it.

Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33882#comment:14>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to