Thread: [SQLObject] test_sqlobject.py fails on Postgres 7.2
SQLObject is a Python ORM.
Brought to you by:
ianbicking,
phd
From: Oleg B. <ph...@ph...> - 2004-12-03 20:07:46
|
Hello! ProgrammingError: ERROR: Relation 'test_s_o1_id_seq' already exists I found the cause for this. In 7.2 DROP TABLE drops the table and all indicies but not sequences. $ psql test test=# \d List of relations Name | Type | Owner ------------------+----------+------- test_s_o1 | table | phd test_s_o1_id_seq | sequence | phd (2 rows) test=# DROP TABLE test_s_o1; DROP test=# \d List of relations Name | Type | Owner ------------------+----------+------- test_s_o1_id_seq | sequence | phd (1 row) Can anybody running Postgres 7.3+ confirm whether it drops sequences on DROP TABLE? Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ ph...@ph... Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2004-12-03 20:16:05
|
Oleg Broytmann wrote: > Hello! > > ProgrammingError: ERROR: Relation 'test_s_o1_id_seq' already exists > > I found the cause for this. In 7.2 DROP TABLE drops the table and all > indicies but not sequences. > > $ psql test > test=# \d > List of relations > Name | Type | Owner > ------------------+----------+------- > test_s_o1 | table | phd > test_s_o1_id_seq | sequence | phd > (2 rows) > > test=# DROP TABLE test_s_o1; > DROP > test=# \d > List of relations > Name | Type | Owner > ------------------+----------+------- > test_s_o1_id_seq | sequence | phd > (1 row) > > > Can anybody running Postgres 7.3+ confirm whether it drops sequences on > DROP TABLE? On 7.4 it seems to drop the sequence when I do: CREATE TABLE test_table ( id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY ); SELECT nextval('test_table_id_seq'); DROP TABLE test_table CASCADE; SELECT nextval('test_table_id_seq'); I get an error on the second nextval. I don't have a 7.3 server around, but I'm guessing it will act the same as 7.4 on this. -- Ian Bicking / ia...@co... / http://blog.ianbicking.org |
From: Oleg B. <ph...@ma...> - 2004-12-03 20:37:53
|
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:12:32PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: > I get an error on the second nextval. I don't have a 7.3 server around, > but I'm guessing it will act the same as 7.4 on this. Thank you! Of course I meant 7.3 and higher, so 7.4 is as good. I don't know what to do with it. I've spent good number of hours rewriting columnsFromSchema() to make it work with 7.2, and mostly succeed. I can now hack into test_sqlobject checking if it is Postgres, and if it is 7.2, and list sequences, and drop them... but should I? Does anyone interested in Postgres 7.2 support? Or am I the last person still using 7.2? Especially now when PostgreSQL team has released 8.0beta5 and is approaching 8.0 release... Or should we just drop support for 7.2 and add to the docs requirements "Postgres 7.3 or higher"? Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ ph...@ph... Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2004-12-03 22:23:02
|
Oleg Broytmann wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:12:32PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: > >>I get an error on the second nextval. I don't have a 7.3 server around, >>but I'm guessing it will act the same as 7.4 on this. > > > Thank you! Of course I meant 7.3 and higher, so 7.4 is as good. > > I don't know what to do with it. I've spent good number of hours > rewriting columnsFromSchema() to make it work with 7.2, and mostly > succeed. I can now hack into test_sqlobject checking if it is Postgres, > and if it is 7.2, and list sequences, and drop them... but should I? > Does anyone interested in Postgres 7.2 support? Or am I the last person > still using 7.2? Especially now when PostgreSQL team has released > 8.0beta5 and is approaching 8.0 release... > Or should we just drop support for 7.2 and add to the docs > requirements "Postgres 7.3 or higher"? Well, I dunno. We still use Postgres 7.2 here, though just out of inertia -- server by server we're upgrading to 7.4. SQLObject is still quite functional with 7.2, but some parts don't work as well. I think it's sufficient to say that 7.4 is strongly recommended, and perhaps document the parts that do not work with 7.2. We can disable the related tests once that is documented. For some viable backends it's unlikely many of these functions will ever work, or won't work reliably, e.g. ODBC. People who use those backends will simply have to stay away from certain features, or create workarounds. -- Ian Bicking / ia...@co... / http://blog.ianbicking.org |
From: Oleg B. <ph...@ma...> - 2004-12-03 22:33:00
|
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:19:23PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: > SQLObject is still > quite functional with 7.2, but some parts don't work as well. I think > it's sufficient to say that 7.4 is strongly recommended, and perhaps > document the parts that do not work with 7.2. We can disable the > related tests once that is documented. Aha, "recommended" instead of "required". Sounds good! Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ ph...@ph... Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. |