Skip to content

Please rename the LOCK_PK index #3035

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
sixcorners opened this issue Aug 19, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3036
Closed

Please rename the LOCK_PK index #3035

sixcorners opened this issue Aug 19, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3036
Assignees
@artembilan
Labels
in: jdbc type: enhancement
Milestone
5.2.RC1

Comments

@sixcorners
Copy link

sixcorners commented Aug 19, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Affects Version(s): 5.1.2.RELEASE

The LOCK_PK index shares a name with an index in spring-cloud-task. If both of these are to be loaded into the same schema then one or the other has to be renamed. I created spring-cloud/spring-cloud-task#625 to be the primary place to discuss this and get it fixed. As long as one project changes it this issue can be considered resolved. Still though if this name can be collided with so easily would it be worth changing the one here too?
@garyrussell garyrussell added the status: invalid Not reproducable or not relevant to the current state of the project label Aug 19, 2019
@garyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

This index predates the one in spring-cloud-task by more than 18 months.

@sixcorners
Copy link
Author

I guess that's a "no".
ok
thanks for the consideration

@artembilan
Copy link
Member

Well, sounds like indexes are global objects, and even if Spring Cloud Task fixes their name do not collide with ours, that doesn't mean we are not going to similar problem in some other use-case: the LOCK_PK is really so generic name. As well as many others in our scripts: MESSAGE_PK, METADATA_STORE etc... So, I suggest to take this issue into account and rename all the indexes with an INT_ prefix as we do for tables.

For time being you really can rename one or another index in your schema: That is really what we suggest in our docs: the scripts we provide in JDBC module are samples and can be adjusted any possible way. As long as it satisfies the API in the framework which uses those tables in queries, of course...

@garyrussell , WDYT?

@garyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

Makes sense, yes.

@garyrussell garyrussell reopened this Aug 19, 2019
@garyrussell garyrussell added in: jdbc type: enhancement and removed status: invalid Not reproducable or not relevant to the current state of the project labels Aug 19, 2019
@garyrussell garyrussell added this to the 5.2.RC1 milestone Aug 19, 2019
@artembilan artembilan self-assigned this Aug 19, 2019
artembilan added a commit to artembilan/spring-integration that referenced this issue Aug 19, 2019
@artembilan
spring-projectsGH-3035: Include INT_ prefix into PK constraints
7fd56ae 
Fixes spring-projects#3035

To avoid names collision for primary key indexes on the target schemas
include an `INT_` prefix to names for the PKs in Spring Integration SQL
scripts.
Also fix the Docs for mentioned PKs
@artembilan artembilan mentioned this issue Aug 19, 2019
Merged
garyrussell pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 28, 2019
@artembilan @garyrussell
GH-3035: Include INT_ prefix into PK constraints
4db71d7 
Fixes #3035

To avoid names collision for primary key indexes on the target schemas
include an `INT_` prefix to names for the PKs in Spring Integration SQL
scripts.
Also fix the Docs for mentioned PKs
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@artembilan artembilan

Labels
in: jdbc type: enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
5.2.RC1
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

GH-3035: Include INT_ prefix into PK constraints artembilan/spring-integration
3 participants
@garyrussell @sixcorners @artembilan