Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add bulk operations utilities #224
Add bulk operations utilities #224
Changes from 1 commit
741c5b7
272da42
3ddb27d
fd15ef9
87e5e33
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Check warning on line 21 in app/src/db/bulk_ops.py
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.
This is probably a very niche edge case, but what would happen if two temp tables were created with the same name by different processes? Does that cause any issues, or does them being in the transactions entirely shield them?
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.
Great question, I tested it locally and it looks like the transaction isolation works like you'd expect. Here's the SQL I ran:
Check warning on line 104 in app/src/db/bulk_ops.py
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.
Would love to know if there's a better way of doing this. I also considered:
but accessing
_engine
directly did not feel appropriate (and doesn't solve for the type issue in any case)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.
hmm, not sure
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.
We could consider adding a
raw_connection()
method to the client class which does what you suggested. For the docs, mention that unless you're trying to do something very low level (ie. in psycopg) you'll almost never actually want to use it.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.
I added this and included a comment with that context -- LMK what you think!
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.
nit: it'd be nice to have the test case do a combination of inserts and updates rather than just inserts and updates separately
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.
Added -- one round of inserts, then a second round of combo insert + updates