>
> > session.begin_nested()
> > session.delete(some_obj)
> > session.commit()
>
> > session.query....for..some_obj finds it.
>
> > 1. How can I get the changes in the nested transaction to turn up in
> > the outer transaction without having to commit the outer transaction.
>
> you should be getting the results you expect. commit() always issues
> a flush which in this case should be issuing a DELETE, and then do a
> RELEASE SAVEPOINT. Take a look at your SQL log output to ensure the
> expected conversation is occuring. Also note that if you issue
> session.query(cls).get(x), the get() call specifically will pull from
> the cache, but in this case the cached object should be expired (since
> commit() expires everything) - it will then check that the object was
> not deleted, and in this case would still return None since it was.
>
The sequence of events I mentioned were incorrect. The following
happens
session.begin_nested()
session.delete(some_obj)
session.commit()
if some_obj in some_other_obj.foreign_key_based_collection:
---> returns true
where some_other_obj_table & some_obj are in a 1 to many fk
relationship and some_other_obj.foreign_key_based_collection is a
sqlachemy instrumented list generated by sqlalchemy.
Turning on the logs made it clear that accessing the collection was a
pure python-memory operation. The delete(some_obj) in the nested
transaction actually did not update all SA collections that some_obj
was a member of (whereas a top level commit - does update such
collections). For now, I am explicitly expiring some_other_obj after
the nested transaction is committed - the next access of
some_other_obj is rebuilding the collection from the DB.
> > 2. I am new to Sqlalchemy and DB based apps in general. The actual
> > problem I am trying to solve is to write apis that create/update/
> > delete objects while in a long running transaction without having to
> > commit this long running transaction.
_snip_
> a long running transaction is going to introduce locking issues and be
> subject to stale data if your database is subject to concurrent
> access. Assuming that's all acceptable, there's no need to use
> savepoints unless you need to be able to rollback within that long
> running transaction and continue. it depends on what you're trying to
> do.
This a stateful session aware webapp responding to HTTP requests -
concurrent access is expected including sessions modifying data that
other sessions may be reading/modifying. In such a scenario would you
recommend many small transactions as compared to fewer larger
transactions per HTTP session ? Our HTTP sessions are expected to live
long.
-srp
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
