-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.1k
Refs #17448, #28632 -- Fixes related to usage of raw SQL with GIS. #9319
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
d204678
to
3683192
Compare
I'm fine with that approach. However, if there is a small backwards incompatibility, I would still mention it in the release notes. |
3683192
to
11a6bdd
Compare
11a6bdd
to
3d07b89
Compare
I edited the docs a bit based on my understanding of the issue. Please check that it's accurate. |
docs/releases/2.0.txt
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@timgraham, I'm not sure if there is sense to mention connection.ops.select
here since it wasn’t doc'd anyhow so I don't think someone used it. Perhaps we should say without any condition: "your raw SQL queries need to be updated".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point, I've amended it.
3d07b89
to
87071b5
Compare
docs/releases/2.0.txt
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@timgraham, it was changed on MySQL and SpatiaLite too, but again, I don't think we need this "if" since I'd like to encourage people to use connection.ops.select
so things will be more robust to changes in Django.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, I've amended it again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Looks good now.
The test was a false positive.
87071b5
to
ddb5748
Compare
…hanges from refs #28518 in release notes.
ddb5748
to
8869142
Compare
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/17448
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/28632
@claudep, I'm not sure if I should restore possibility to select geometry fields without select formatting on Postgres, because it's slower than selecting as
bytea
by 10%.