Re: Django 5.0

Not yet, but database generated model fields look pretty compelling! On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 9:15:21 AM UTC-5 attah paul wrote: > any review on the Django from you guys -- You received this messag

Re: Django 4.2, PyPy and Postgres

Interestingly, I can confirm that using Psycopg 3 *does *seem to work. I only got it working a few minutes ago, so it has not been thoroughly tested but my test suite passes, which is very encouraging. Thanks for the nudge, Jason. On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 10:51:29 AM UTC-5 Pete Doherty

Re: Django 4.2, PyPy and Postgres

e a reason you're on psycopg2cffi? have you tried with regular > psycopg2? > > On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-5 Pete Doherty wrote: > >> I'm wondering if anyone is using Django 4.2, PyPy 3.10 and Postgres 15? >> >> I tried using psycopg2cff

Django 4.2, PyPy and Postgres

I'm wondering if anyone is using Django 4.2, PyPy 3.10 and Postgres 15? I tried using psycopg2cffi==2.9.0 and it works up until a point but eventually fails with a series of errors relating to imports. After adding the compatibility layer to the top of my settings.py script using: > from psyco

Detect and address Django/Graphene performance issues

Hi all, I'm working on a project that's using Django and Graphene which is seeing extremely poor performance (specifically time-to-first-byte) when the GQL object graph is nested more than a few levels deep and thousands of nodes are included in the response body. We've optimized the SQL queri