Re: Migration challenges

Adding a not null column can be a breaking operation On 26 Sep 2014 13:29, "Erik Ashepa" wrote: > Hi, > I've presented the third feature in the user group. > > I'll try to clarify what I've meant. > > A destructive operation is any operation which would break backward >

Re: Migration challenges

Hi, I've presented the third feature in the user group. I'll try to clarify what I've meant. A destructive operation is any operation which would break backward compatibility with a previous version of the application. I proposed implementing the ability to have multiple south migration

Re: Migration challenges

I'm still on holiday, but just wanted to quickly feed back on some of these: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Shai Berger wrote: > Hi all, > > I gave a talk to a local user-group about the migrations in 1.7, and some > people in the audience raised things they would like to

Re: Migration challenges

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:24:28 AM UTC+9:30, Shai Berger wrote: > > Hi all, > > I gave a talk to a local user-group about the migrations in 1.7, and some > people in the audience raised things they would like to be able to do, and > are > not supported by the current framework;

Re: Migration challenges

I have some comments regarding 3. The idea, if I've understood your recount of the problem, is a good one. You want to be able to run a backwards-compatible migration (database works with app-state X and X+1), upgrade your application servers, and then run another migration that works with

Migration challenges

Hi all, I gave a talk to a local user-group about the migrations in 1.7, and some people in the audience raised things they would like to be able to do, and are not supported by the current framework; thought it would be nice to bring them here. Two issues were about handling migrations at