BUG #2867: FULL PATH name problem
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2867
Logged by: Ted Petrosky
Email address: tedpet5@yahoo.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.2
Operating system: OS X
Description: FULL PATH name problem
Details:
I have been working with WebObjects and the EOModeler. When I tell EOModeler
to examine a table, it comes up with this for the primary key.
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINT public.article_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
I must change it to be:
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINT article_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
because postgresql doesn't like the 'public.' after the CONSTRAINT. I guess
the question is, should it?
Ted
"Ted Petrosky" <tedpet5@yahoo.com> writes:
I have been working with WebObjects and the EOModeler. When I tell EOModeler
to examine a table, it comes up with this for the primary key.
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINT public.article_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
I must change it to be:
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINT article_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
because postgresql doesn't like the 'public.' after the CONSTRAINT. I guess
the question is, should it?
No, I think that'd be a bad idea. The SQL spec does call for a
schema-qualified constraint name here, but that's because they have a
different model of the constraint namespace than we do, to wit, unique
per schema vs. our unique per table. Unless you want to buy into the
SQL naming model, you shouldn't be trying to specify a schema name here.
regards, tom lane
So my problem is that the program EOModeler is forcing
the schema-qualified constraint. I will filed a bug
report with Apple.... Unfortunitily, I believe that
the product has been deprecated.... I have yet to get
eclipse with "entity modeler" working correctly to see
what it does the the name space....
Thanks for the reply
Ted
--- Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"Ted Petrosky" <tedpet5@yahoo.com> writes:
I have been working with WebObjects and the
EOModeler. When I tell EOModeler
to examine a table, it comes up with this for the
primary key.
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINT
public.article_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
I must change it to be:
ALTER TABLE public.article ADD CONSTRAINTarticle_PK PRIMARY KEY
(entityid);
because postgresql doesn't like the 'public.'after the CONSTRAINT. I guess
the question is, should it?
No, I think that'd be a bad idea. The SQL spec does
call for a
schema-qualified constraint name here, but that's
because they have a
different model of the constraint namespace than we
do, to wit, unique
per schema vs. our unique per table. Unless you
want to buy into the
SQL naming model, you shouldn't be trying to specify
a schema name here.regards, tom lane
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com