Yeah seems like `db_default` was the felling, at least last time I scanned through this long-going discussion :D
I've had to tweak Django's migration handling a bit to handle our zero-downtime requirements. SQLalchemy has had this for awhile (http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/latest/core/defaults.html#server-side-defaults), so I see no reason why it can't be done in Django. On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 9:12:24 AM UTC-7, Paul Tiplady wrote: > > 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/36b8377d-d17e-4ce9-9520-245ad8cca338%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
