The bug itself was fixed at some point in the past months (there have
been a few improvements to update() recently). Fixed#9848.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@10528 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Using select_related(...) across a nullable relation to a multi-table
model inheritance situation no longer excludes results. Thanks to AdamG
for a test demonstrating part of the problem.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@10136 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Calling the super() version of __reduce__ in Model.__reduce__ led to infinite
loops in Python prior to 2.5. We don't do that any longer.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@10099 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
In extreme cases, some fields are expensive to load from the database
(e.g. GIS fields requiring conversion, or large text fields). This
commit adds defer() and only() methods to querysets that allow the
caller to specify which fields should not be loaded unless they are
accessed.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@10090 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Some results were inadvertently being excluded if we were ordering across a
nullable relation which itself ordering by a non-nullable relation.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9916 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Previous behaviour was pretty stupid. Let's never speak of it again. New
behaviour both works and is documented.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9759 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
This extends previous functionality that allowed passing Query objects as the
rvals to filters. You can now pass QuerySets, which requires less poking at
opaque attributes. See the documentation of the "__in" lookup type for the
details.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9701 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Extricated the code that works directly with SQL columns (standard
"where" stuff) from the the code that takes SQL fragments and combines
it with lookup types and values. The latter portion is now more
generally reusable. Any existing code that was poking at Query.having
will now break in very visible ways (no subtle miscalculations, which is
a good thing).
This patch, en passant, removes the existing "having" test, since the
new implementation requires more setting up than previously. The
aggregates support (currently in a separate codebase) has tests for this
functionality that work as a replacement for the removed test.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9700 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
that happens with MySQL when a "GROUP BY" clause is included. This is a
backend-specific operation, so any other databases requiring similar
encouragement can have a function added to their own backend code.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9637 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
again later (order_by('foo')). Or, at least, it can now. Thanks to Ilya
Novoselov for diagnosing the problem here.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9206 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
more than 20 objects.
This means that accidentally executing HugeStoryArchive.objects.all() at the
interactive prompt (or in the debug template) won't try to load all 4,233,010
stories into memory and print them out. That would previously cause resource
starvation and other "interesting" crashes.
If you really, really want the previous behaviour (e.g. in a doctest that
prints more than 20 items), display "list(qs)" instead of just "qs".
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9202 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
"having" attributes, only the former was included in the resulting SQL, meaning
subclasses had to completely duplicate Query.as_sql() if they were using any
kind of grouping filtering on the results.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9007 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Python beta releases. Failures there mean that incorrect code won't raise an
error, but it's otherwise harmless (correct code still runs correctly).
Fixed#7786.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@8570 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
aren't always equivalent. This is documented, stable behaviour, so we should
ensure it doesn't change accidentally.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@8312 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Based on a patch from Justin Bronn.
The test in this patch most likely breaks on Oracle. That's another issue.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@8053 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
The problem being "hidden" here is not serious. It won't affect correct code
and only gives a different failure mode for incorrect code. The moral is: don't
write incorrect code.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@7939 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Patch from mturtle@gmail.com. The remaining uses of "%s__pk" in
fields/related.py all look safe, since they are for many-to-many fields, which
doesn't take "to_field" as a parameter.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@7785 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
Jacob Kaplan-Moss
Malcolm Tredinnick
Ian Kelly
Russell Keith-Magee
Matt Boersma