Re: [snafu] isolation-level change in 2.4.2
От | Daniele Varrazzo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [snafu] isolation-level change in 2.4.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+mi_8YtBO9H9f5D+Du9_3ScYkbYKtbjwngw9cvCeF07R2vYMQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [snafu] isolation-level change in 2.4.2 (Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [snafu] isolation-level change in 2.4.2
Re: [snafu] isolation-level change in 2.4.2 |
Список | psycopg |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> wrote: Marko, I've noted just now the "snafu" in the title: do you have anything to complain about? Please make an explicit list of your points because - but it may be just me not understanding the subtleties of the English language - I feel your tone in this thread a little bit on the unpleasant side. > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Daniele Varrazzo > <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote: >> The only widespread use of a numeric value I've seen (including many >> official psycopg2 examples) is for autocommit=0, so when I've changed >> the values I've cared to keep that value stable only. > > Please remove any kind of usage of plain ints from psycopg > test and example code, if you really want discourage such use. > > db.set_isolation_level(0) quite strongly hints that other > numeric usage is valid too. You can choose whether to write your code by induction over examples or by reading the documentation. The constants have been there for more than 6 years and are the only usage explicitly documented. > Esp. note the usage in lib/psycopg1.py that was not updated > with your previous changes. Right: psycopg1.py is not maintained, not documented and hasn't got a single test. Fog: shall we fix it or drop it? -- Daniele,
В списке psycopg по дате отправления: