policiesToUpdate := set.CreateStringSet(policies...)
	var newPolicySet set.StringSet
	newPolicyMapping := mp
	if isAttach {
		// new policies to attach => inputPolicies - existing (set difference)
		policiesToUpdate = policiesToUpdate.Difference(existingPolicySet)
		// validate that new policies to add are defined.
		for _, p := range policiesToUpdate.ToSlice() {
			if _, found := cache.iamPolicyDocsMap[p]; !found {

If you can choose a more recent version of Python for your project, you will be able to take advantage of that extra simplicity.

In all the docs there are examples compatible with each version of Python (when there's a difference).

For example "**Python 3.6+**" means it's compatible with Python 3.6 or above (including 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, etc). And "**Python 3.9+**" means it's compatible with Python 3.9 or above (including 3.10, etc).

	// By default DB.DryRun should false
	if DB.DryRun {
		t.Fatal("Failed expect DB.DryRun to be false")
	}

	if DB.Dialector.Name() == "sqlserver" {
		t.Skip("Skip SQL Server for this test, because it too difference with other dialects.")
	}

	date, _ := time.ParseInLocation("2006-01-02", "2021-10-18", time.Local)

	// find
	sql := DB.ToSQL(func(tx *gorm.DB) *gorm.DB {

    /**
     * Performs constant-time comparison of two char arrays to prevent timing attacks.
     * This method always compares the full length of both arrays, regardless of when
     * differences are found, making the execution time independent of the position
     * of differing characters.
     *
     * @param a first char array to compare
     * @param b second char array to compare

<a href="https://9p.io/sys/doc/asm.html">elsewhere</a>.
If you plan to write assembly language, you should read that document although much of it is Plan 9-specific.
The current document provides a summary of the syntax and the differences with
what is explained in that document, and
describes the peculiarities that apply when writing assembly code to interact with Go.
</p>

<p>

     * Another way to express this signature would be to bound <V> by @NonNull and accept
     * LF<? extends @Nullable V>. That might be better: There's currently no difference between the
     * outputs users get when calling this with <Foo> and calling it with <@Nullable Foo>. The only
     * difference is that calling it with <Foo> won't work when an input Future has a @Nullable
     * type. So why even make that error possible by giving callers the choice?

     * mix of "less than" and "greater than"). We've also switched to "strictly less than" rather
     * than "less than or equal to" because of *handwave* the difference between "endpoints of
     * inclusive ranges" and "Cuts."
     */
    if (lowerBound.compareTo(otherRange.upperBound) < 0
        && otherRange.lowerBound.compareTo(upperBound) < 0) {

     * <p>Deals correctly with quotes and control-chars (tab, backslash, cr, ff, etc.) </p>
     *
     * <p>So a tab becomes the characters <code>'\\'</code> and
     * <code>'t'</code>.</p>
     *
     * <p>The only difference between Java strings and JavaScript strings
     * is that in JavaScript, a single quote must be escaped.</p>
     *
     * <p>Example:</p>
     * <pre>
     * input string: He didn't say, "Stop!"

     * <p>Deals correctly with quotes and control-chars (tab, backslash, cr, ff, etc.) </p>
     *
     * <p>So a tab becomes the characters <code>'\\'</code> and
     * <code>'t'</code>.</p>
     *
     * <p>The only difference between Java strings and JavaScript strings
     * is that in JavaScript, a single quote must be escaped.</p>
     *
     * <p>Example:</p>
     * <pre>
     * input string: He didn't say, "Stop!"

Check more details in the [Deployment](deployment/index.md){.internal-link target=_blank} section.

///

## Benchmarks and speed { #benchmarks-and-speed }