On 06/30/2016 02:15 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:17:34 AM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote:
So it seems clear that probably for 1.2 we will need to add a
comprehensive layer of being able to change what "IN" does, the choices
being "raise", "simple-false", "column-false", and probably some
others,
and for starters it would be a dialect-level flag. I'd love to
change
the default to "simple-false" too due to the above revelation that
databases can be coerced into admitting their opinion on this.
It would be nice if the engine configuration (or some option hook on the
session) could override that.
In a development environment, I would prefer to see empty `IN()` raise
an error. That would help track down all the situations where this
occurs, so code can handle the empty lists. This is with the
understanding that certain implementors will never want an empty list
sent to IN -- and that would be a bug/case in the application logic that
was missed.
that's already there, in the form of the Python warnings filter.
people keep asking about this and it should be in the FAQ.
In production, and for other situations, this approach would not be ideal.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
