Michael Bayer schrieb: > I had the idea that since "a1" appears to be in the collections of both u1 > and u2, it would be arbitrary where "a1" ended up after the flush > completed. But that is likely wrong, in that the flush() is going to look > at change events to determine what state changes to persist to the > database. I'm not sure if there's a more complex series of moves between > u1 and u2 which would make predicting the final destination of "a1" > difficult, though.
I still don't really understand why/how a flush operation would change the .addresses attribute of any object as a side effect. Maybe I just understand SA's unit-of-work implementation not good enough. -- Christoph --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
