#26371 closed New feature (worksforme)
please add section to tutorial for switching over to and using postgres — at Version 2
Reported by: | Becka R. | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | 1.9 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | yes | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
Because it is not possible to deploy Django with SQLite, the tutorial would be much more complete with a section for "beyond the basics."
I now have a solid understanding of the fundamentals, and have been struggling a lot to level up, and there are a lot of common use cases which are insufficiently documented.
In a "beyond the basics" tutorial section, one chapter might include step by step instructions for moving over to Postgres using Psycopg2, and then using multiple settings files depending on the dev context, and understanding how to navigate this (honestly, I'm not even sure what questions to ask here, because I barely understand how it works).
ETA: correction. On some platforms, it is not possible to deploy with SQLite. Generally speaking, SQLite isn't the favored database for deployed applications.
It's very, very easy to make mistakes here, and the documentation for the psycopg2 package itself is inaccurate, and the docs for Postgres are overwhelming. The combination of Django and Postgres to the new dev feels very, very insurmountable without a pairing buddy. Please add docs to add support for this very standard and confusing process.
Change History (2)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 9 years ago
Resolution: | → worksforme |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 9 years ago
Component: | Uncategorized → Documentation |
---|---|
Description: | modified (diff) |
(edited description in response to Claude's comment)
Replying to beckastar:
Where did you read this? It is not recommended on most real deployments, but I'm using Django/SQLite on a very small site and I'm satisfied for that specific use case.
I wouldn't say that we couldn't improve anything on this subject, but your description of the issue is not very targeted and I'm afraid it would be difficult to turn it into a real patch. It could be the subject of a discussion in a sprint or something like that. I'd then suggest to open a ticket with some proposal attached.