Hi Adam,
This isn't so much a tech support question- I don't have a specific
personal issue I'm trying to solve with this suggestion, it's more that I
feel like this part of django works in a counter-intuitive way (best
exemplified that the Django documentation includes various warnings about
Steffan
Your question suffers from the ”X/Y problem”. You’re asking whether to
change Django to make Y easy, without explaining the X you’re trying to
achieve. *Why* do you want to know if you're in the runserver main process?
Also, it may work to check the running command from sys.argv (
Will there *not* be a Django ORM implementation of psycopg3 COPY FROM
when that lands? And, I guess I'll need to figure out when that
lands/would land.
Not automagically, since the ORM does not use COPY internally. The main
ORM parts are pretty generic, thus mostly based on ANSI compliant SQL
Will there *not* be a Django ORM implementation of psycopg3 COPY FROM when
that lands? And, I guess I'll need to figure out when that lands/would land.
On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 11:07:51 AM UTC-4 j.bre...@netzkolchose.de
wrote:
> > pretty quickly, so if you need testing input (Django
> pretty quickly, so if you need testing input (Django 3.2, Postgres) I
> can offer feedback from what I find.
Yes testing would be awesome, esp. for edge cases (test coverage for
default cases is pretty complete for `fast_update` I think).
> Can you tell me more about this statement:
> >
Jerch,
I love that you're improving the `bulk_update` performance with your
package. I am definitely looking to adopt it. I can start working on it
pretty quickly, so if you need testing input (Django 3.2, Postgres) I can
offer feedback from what I find.
Can you tell me more about this
>
> +1 for that, though this will need some careful design between perf
optimizations and how much general purpose it should be.
Perhaps before optimising we could start out with the basic readable
version and tailor it moving forward. It's possible this could be
irrelevant if it's only ever
