jack commented on AIRFLOW-2319:

[~akoeltringer] I think officialy there are only 3: SQlite, PostgreSQL and 
MySQL. As these are the only DBs being tested with travis.

> Table "dag_run" has (bad) second index on (dag_id, execution_date)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: AIRFLOW-2319
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2319
>             Project: Apache Airflow
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: DagRun
>    Affects Versions: 1.9.0
>            Reporter: Andreas Költringer
>            Priority: Major
> Inserting DagRun's via {{airflow.api.common.experimental.trigger_dag}} 
> (multiple rows with the same {{(dag_id, execution_date)}}) raised the 
> following error:
> {code:java}
> {models.py:1644} ERROR - No row was found for one(){code}
> This is weird as the {{session.add()}} and {{session.commit()}} is right 
> before {{run.refresh_from_db()}} in {{models.DAG.create_dagrun()}}.
> Manually inspecting the database revealed that there is an extra index with 
> {{unique}} constraint on the columns {{(dag_id, execution_date)}}:
> {code:java}
> sqlite> .schema dag_run
> CREATE TABLE dag_run (
>         id INTEGER NOT NULL, 
>         dag_id VARCHAR(250), 
>         execution_date DATETIME, 
>         state VARCHAR(50), 
>         run_id VARCHAR(250), 
>         external_trigger BOOLEAN, conf BLOB, end_date DATETIME, start_date 
>         PRIMARY KEY (id), 
>         UNIQUE (dag_id, execution_date), 
>         UNIQUE (dag_id, run_id), 
>         CHECK (external_trigger IN (0, 1))
> );
> CREATE INDEX dag_id_state ON dag_run (dag_id, state);{code}
> (On SQLite its a unique constraint, on MariaDB its also an index)
> The {{DagRun}} class in {{models.py}} does not reflect this, however it is in 
> [migrations/versions/1b38cef5b76e_add_dagrun.py|https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/blob/master/airflow/migrations/versions/1b38cef5b76e_add_dagrun.py#L42]
> I looked for other migrations correting this, but could not find any. As this 
> is not reflected in the model, I guess this is a bug?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to