On Dec 5, 1:16 am, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> See also:http://www.revsys.com/writings/postgresql-performance.html
>
Thanks, I'll dig into that.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, s
"hacks, signals, and/or patches"
One of these things is not like the other.
The signals framework is made for precisely for cases like the one you
describe. Why do you compare it to hacks / patches?
Your signal can be utterly DRY and you can write unit tests for it
(although, if you are using a
> Or is your main objection having to branch against the specific
Simply put, there should be an *optional* way to ensure a model's
*explicitly* defined delete behavior is honored without having to
write hacks, signals, and/or patches of any kind (ie, make it DRY, and
therefore less error-prone).
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 12:57 am, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
>> There is one easy thing you can do for testing, set fsync to off in
>> postgresql.conf. The file is probably at /etc/postgresql/9.1/main/
>> postgresql.conf. Then restart the server and tests s
On Dec 5, 12:57 am, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> There is one easy thing you can do for testing, set fsync to off in
> postgresql.conf. The file is probably at /etc/postgresql/9.1/main/
> postgresql.conf. Then restart the server and tests should be way
> faster. Note that if your machine crashes, y
On Dec 5, 2:44 am, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Okay, thanks - I'll look at these. By the way, I tried to get a
> PostgreSQL server set up on my system (9.1, as that's the default for
> Ubuntu Oneiric) and started running the tests, but they are running
> very very slowly. I've got a very simple settings.
On Dec 5, 12:09 am, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> Now for the next problems:
>
Okay, thanks - I'll look at these. By the way, I tried to get a
PostgreSQL server set up on my system (9.1, as that's the default for
Ubuntu Oneiric) and started running the tests, but they are running
very very slowly.
On Dec 4, 7:55 pm, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Try just b(name) instead of bytes(name, ...) and see if that works.
Fixed with just the b.
> > I don't know what to do to that.
>
> Replace *tuple(e) with *e.args (5 occurrences) and see how that works.
Fixed.
Now for the next problems:
In django/db/mod
Doesn't using the pre_delete signal accomplish this?
Or is your main objection having to branch against the specific
models, leading to the coupling you are talking about? It surely
solves the monkey-patching problem, though, no?
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> Did my last p
Did my last post answer the question you had, Adrian?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+
On Dec 4, 4:32 pm, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> I am currently running the test suite using psycopg2 (2.4.0 onwards
> support Python 3) and Python 3.2. I can report that there are at least
> three things needing fixing:
Anssi, thanks for posting this feedback.
> A mistake in django/db/backends/uti
On Dec 4, 3:01 pm, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Python 3.2.2
> =
> Ran 4420 tests in 389.154s
>
> OK (skipped=96, expected failures=2, unexpected successes=1)
I am currently running the test suite using psycopg2 (2.4.0 onwards
support Python 3) and Python 3.2. I can report that there are at least
Progress update on the Python 3 port[1] - all tests now pass[2] on
Python 2.5.4, 2.6.2, 2.7.2 and 3.2.2.
Python 2.5.4
=
Ran 4490 tests in 513.699s
OK (skipped=91, expected failures=3)
Python 2.6.2
=
Ran 4490 tests in 455.615s
OK (skipped=89, expected failures=3)
Python 2.7.2
==
On Dec 3, 9:18 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
>
> I did some checks in the py3k patch of all the cases where we actually
> do this because we need the exception object. I found the following:
>
Thanks for the analysis and suggested patch. I've implemented this
patch in my branch, and the tests are runn
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 3, 2011, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> With the 1.4 release coming up, I thought it'd be a good time to
>>> schedule a sprint to get in any ponies o
15 matches
Mail list logo
