Hi Shaun, On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 10:44 -0700, shaunc wrote: > Is this the right place to ask about what looks to be a bug? If not, > sorry.... > > If so, the following code will cause generation of SQL that is missing > constraints:
[... informative example snipped ...] > But the bottom line is that only one set of ALTER TABLESs can be > generated in this situation, where we might need more than one. Nice debugging (and thanks for the solution in subsequent emails as well). I think this is the same problem as was reported in ticket #1968 (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1928 ), so I've added a pointer to this thread to the bottom of that ticket -- since you have gone deeper than the original report. When somebody gets a chance to review this, your work should help. Regards, Malcolm X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.54.68.11 with SMTP id q11mr158624wra; Sat, 20 May 2006 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from bigben2.bytemark.co.uk (bigben2.bytemark.co.uk [80.68.81.132]) by mx.googlegroups.com with ESMTP id v11si524940cwb.2006.05.20.18.08.22; Sat, 20 May 2006 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (googlegroups.com: 80.68.81.132 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Received: from sharp.pointy-stick.com ([80.68.90.23]) by bigben2.bytemark.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FhcQf-0008Hg-Sm for [email protected]; Sun, 21 May 2006 01:08:21 +0000 Received: from counterweight.tredinnick.org (cust7071.nsw01.dataco.com.au [203.171.88.159]) by sharp.pointy-stick.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6EAC38C for <[email protected]>; Sun, 21 May 2006 11:08:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: bug? missing foreign key constraints in SQL From: Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:08:13 +1000 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2) Hi Shaun, On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 10:44 -0700, shaunc wrote: > Is this the right place to ask about what looks to be a bug? If not, > sorry.... > > If so, the following code will cause generation of SQL that is missing > constraints: [... informative example snipped ...] > But the bottom line is that only one set of ALTER TABLESs can be > generated in this situation, where we might need more than one. Nice debugging (and thanks for the solution in subsequent emails as well). I think this is the same problem as was reported in ticket #1968 (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1928 ), so I've added a pointer to this thread to the bottom of that ticket -- since you have gone deeper than the original report. When somebody gets a chance to review this, your work should help. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
