On Wednesday 30 November 2016 03:10:23 Michael Manfre wrote:
> > On 29 November 2016 at 22:04, Josh Smeaton
> > wrote:
>
> > Mads, there's nothing that currently handles a list of expressions, and
> > certainly nothing specific to OrderBy. Your proposed syntax is basically
> > what would be requi
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 6:37 PM Adam Johnson wrote:
> I'm not sure about that detail atm, I need to review the patch. I just
> think we shouldn't be putting anything in postgres-only land.
>
> On 29 November 2016 at 22:04, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> Adam, are you thinking we should be adding someth
I'm not sure about that detail atm, I need to review the patch. I just
think we shouldn't be putting anything in postgres-only land.
On 29 November 2016 at 22:04, Josh Smeaton wrote:
> Adam, are you thinking we should be adding something like
> Model.objects.window(), or just allowing Window-typ
Adam, are you thinking we should be adding something like
Model.objects.window(), or just allowing Window-type expressions on
backends that have a specific feature flag? Does the compiler need to get
involved at all, or can we handle the full range of window expressions with
the expressions API
As to your point 1:
> Since this is specific to postgres
Well, Window expressions aren't specific to Postgres:
- They exist in Oracle
- They exist in MariaDB 10.2 which is in beta and will be GA at around
the same time this patch is
out: https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/window-
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 1:51:05 AM UTC+1, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> OrderBy takes an expression - it doesn't have to be a single column. For
> example, this is valid:
>
> (Lower('last_name') + Lower('first_name)).desc() ==
> OrderBy(Lower('last_name') + Lower('first_name), descending=True
Hi all,
My company (Citus Data) is interested in sponsoring some Django work. In
particular work on support for composite primary keys. From what I
understand this wouldn't be the first time the work has been explored and
it sounds like it has a number of intricacies to it (
https://github.com/dja
On Monday, 28 November 2016 21:38:14 UTC, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, there's a ticket [0] asking to expand the documentation of the
> settings.CSRF_COOKIE_HTTPONLY. If this setting doesn't provide any value,
> then I figure we should remove the system check that suggests to enable it
> and
