JeffV wrote: > doc_id is not a PK. An accurate model of the table would be: > set_primary_key nil
Again: determine a suitable unique index (potentially composite, say, doc_id and something else) and declare that as your primary key in the DB. This will have many advantages and virtually no downside AFAIK. > But the PG postgres adapter is unhappy with that because it's > generating something like: > INSERT into the_table VALUES (val1, val2...) RETURNING pk > when pk is nil the postgres adapter is unhappy. > For some reason the composite_primary_keys plugin fixes the problem > (as only a single PK is specified). > To me the problem is the PG adapter. I don't know why it uses > RETURNING in its INSERT statement. No, the problem is in your insistence that you don't want a PK. Really, any unique index will do the trick. Stop fighting Rails and good DB design and declare one. :) > > Jeff > Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
