And you were right. It turned out to be a stupid idea anyway. Let that be a lesson for the next programmer who tries to be lazy ;-)
On Jul 7, 12:32 am, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Koen Bok wrote: > > > > > I have a strange situation. If someone _really_ needs to know why I > > could explain. > > > When an object gets deleted by SQLAlchemy, it's related objects are > > getting updated setting their foreign keys referring to the deleted > > items to NULL. But what if I don't want that to happen? Viewonly is > > not an option here, as I need to be able to make changes. > > it wants to maintain referential integrity. if you werent using > SQLite, you'd get an error on any other database if it were not set > to NULL. that the foreign key value can store a value which doesnt > exist otherwise seems to imply youre setting it manually, in which > case "viewonly" could still work for you. we dont have an option > right now for it to populate foreign keys but to not clear them out > (also have gone this far without anyone *truly* needing it....). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
