On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 15:56 +0900, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> [...]
>> There is a slight complication, though. The ordering of values() and
>> annotate() is significant - values() controls the grouping of
>> annotated values if it p
Hello,
I would like to suggest (patch will follow if someone concurs) that
custom sql is executed after Django has created indexes.
Django is (in my opinion) a bit optimistic regarding index creation,
and by looking at pg_stat_* output I see that at least a couple of
indexes on busy tables hasn'
Malcolm, Russell, James,
Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my questions.
I think that these questions are rooted in the unrealistic idea that
something that
looks like it would be good relationship- or PR-wise is also a good development
priority.
As I expressed, I've simply
On Feb 10, 4:25 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the
> Django 1.2 timeframe.
That's good to know. I see there's already a hook for a custom query
class which would work well as far as querying is concerned, but
doesn't seem to b
Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
> There's also
> simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a
> couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should
> probably
> go after, or in tandem with, a rewrite of related fields to clean them
> up i
On Feb 10, 1:13 pm, Johan Bergström wrote:
> Since Django executes my custom SQL before creating indexes, it's
> impossible to achieve something that hooks into initdb/syncdb. I know
> that it is "good custom" to create indexes after inserting data – but
> fixtures in Django is already executed a
Hey,
On Feb 10, 4:51 pm, "ludvig.ericson" wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:13 pm, Johan Bergström wrote:
>
> > Since Django executes my custom SQL before creating indexes, it's
> > impossible to achieve something that hooks into initdb/syncdb. I know
> > that it is "good custom" to create indexes after in
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM, David Larlet wrote:
>
>
> Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
> > There's also
> > simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a
> > couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should
> > probably
> > go after,
> Anybody can review tickets (shouldn't review your own, for obvious
> reasons). So if there are patches out there, start going through them.
>
> The current timing is significant. Once we get a couple of things
> knocked off and 1.1-alpha out the door, a few of us (and me, in
> particular) will
Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
> David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using
> the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd
> need to put some more thought into this(and perhaps Malcolm already
> has) but it should be possible.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Larlet wrote:
>
>
> Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit :
> > David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using
> > the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd
> > need to put some more thought into this(an
Hey all,
I recently came across the issue described in #5903 [1] earlier. There
are two distinct patches that fix the problem, but at different
levels. My inclination is to fix this issue at the model field level
and properly override get_default. My feeling is that allowing Decimal
objects to pa
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Brian Rosner wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I recently came across the issue described in #5903 [1] earlier. There
> are two distinct patches that fix the problem, but at different
> levels. My inclination is to fix this issue at the model field level
> and properly over
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Brian Rosner wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I recently came across the issue described in #5903 [1] earlier. There
>> are two distinct patches that fix the problem, but at different
>> levels. My inclinatio
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 19:43 +0900, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 15:56 +0900, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > [...]
> >> There is a slight complication, though. The ordering of values() and
> >> annotate() is
15 matches
Mail list logo
