#34369: Improve the interaction between transaction.atomic() and generator
functions
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Raphaël Barrois | Owner: nobody
Type: | Status: closed
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Database layer | Version: 4.1
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution: wontfix
Keywords: atomic generator | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by Carlton Gibson):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => wontfix
Comment:
I'm going to close based on Mariusz' comment. I tend to agree. The docs
that pretty clear that the transaction is closed when the block exits, so
this is expected behaviour. (Maybe it's just me but, in all these years, I
never thought to use a generator in this context.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34369#comment:2>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018696fbd282-e8ac722e-d4b0-47a5-87e4-2892bf32584d-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
