I hadn't really thought the save-update through, my real interest was
regarding merge. For "save-update" it may not make as much sense.
On 2/29/2012 10:55 AM, Michael Bayer wrote:
I get what that would do for merge and might not be a big deal, what
would it do for save-update?
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Kent <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I suspect this doesn't interest you so much, and no offense taken if
not, but have you ever considered supporting the idea of a "half
merge/save-update" cascade for many to many relationships?
The use case is where I want to merge/save-update to the secondary
table only (collection status), but I don't want to merge/save
changes to the actual related objects.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sqlalchemy" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/-/lvDys29gJncJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
--
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.
--
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.
