It appears the only thing wrong with the trigger is that it needs "/" on the line right after it ends.
Also, for me it has been helpful to have the drop commands in the file. Do we want to included them in a comment?
--drop TRIGGER logging_event_id_seq_trig;
--drop SEQUENCE logging_event_id_seq;
--drop table logging_event_property;
--drop table logging_event_exception;
--drop table logging_event;
James Stauffer
-----Original Message-----
From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:33 AM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: RE: Oracle.sql incorrect
Ceki is correct INTEGER doesn't need to be changed to NUMBER(10). Also I think my trigger still isn't correct. I'll check.
James Stauffer
-----Original Message-----
From: James Stauffer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:20 AM
To: 'Log4J Developers List'
Subject: Oracle.sql incorrect
My changes where:
Prefix comment lines with "--". "#" didn't parse.
BIGINT -> NUMBER(20)
TEXT -> VARCHAR2(4000)
SMALLINT -> NUMBER(5)
INT -> NUMBER(10)
VARCHAR -> VARCHAR2
I also had to change the trigger to use a declared variable.
Sorry for the white space changes. I didn't notice them. I'll post an updated diff attachment without the white space changes. Ceki mentioned closing the issue and discussing on this list. That is fine with me but would I then post the diff to the list?
James Stauffer
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28908] - Oracle.sql incorrect
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28908
Oracle.sql incorrect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority|Other |Low
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-12 08:46 ------- Hello James,
Thank you for looking into this. I was expecting that some minor fixes would be required but not changing every single line.
What is wrong with an SQL 92 type such as INTEGER? I would much prefer to change the lines which are wrong rather than the lines which get changed while hunting for the lines which were really wrong.
My suggestion would be to continue to dialog on log4j-dev. If you agree, I'll close this bug report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
