And check the schema_migrations table in the database. Maybe an older database was restored from a backup for some reason.
On May 27, 2:02 pm, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: > This would suggest that the migration you were running was attempting to add > the artists table. I think this is nothing to do with rake > db:sessions:create. Have a look in the migration made by the rake to see > what it is doing. I imagine that you have an earlier migration that created > the artists table and for some reason that is running again. > > Colin > > 2009/5/27 Mk 27 <[email protected]> > > > > > I was following this set of instructions from the "Cookie overflow?" > > thread: > > > > Your sessions (by default in cookie) needs to be moved to Active record > > > store or memcache store to fix this issue. > > > > For Databased sessions: > > > config.action_controller.session_store = :active_record_store > > > You need to create the session table as below > > > rake db:sessions:create > > > rake db:migrate > > > I added the config line to environment.rb; is that the approriate place? > > > When I ran the migration, I got > > > rake aborted! > > An error has occurred, this and all later migrations canceled: > > > SQLite3::SQLException: table "artists" already exists: [etc] > > > So I removed the existing, populated database (to a safe place, since I > > do not want to have to create it again unless necessary) and ran the > > rake db:migrate again...clearly there is something I don't understand > > because most sane people would want to preserve the contents of an > > existing db when they modify it. > > > Now I have a problem, because of course the new (empty) database has an > > extra table in it. Before I go and write a ruby script to create a > > database containing my old records + the new table as it appears in > > schema.rb, is there not a simpler, more sensible way to do this? > > > If I do have to remake the db manually, can anyone answer a questions > > for me regarding the session table: Does it also use a column "id" as > > the INTEGER PRIMARY KEY? I suppose it won't matter if it doesn't and I > > put one in anyway... > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
