yes yes, i still want to put your pg_schema patch in...just been  
procrastinating...also i think it needs adjustment for the new  
ForeignKeyConstraint object.   (maybe you can try it out agaisnt the  
latest trunk and see if it still works / adjust as necessary) ?

was just curious about current functionality tho.

On Aug 9, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Sandro Dentella wrote:

>> If using autoload=True when defining your metadata, be sure your FK
>> constraint names are unique to the schema . PostgreSQL scopes FK
>> constraint names to the table, but SQLAlchemy loads them from the SQL
>> standard information_schema, which is designed for schema-scoped
>> constraint names.
>
> While I don't really understand "PostgreSQL scopes FK constraint  
> names to
> the table", I can say that my patch fixing ticket 71 (when can we  
> see it
> accepted?) does not load from information_schema and is not schema- 
> scoped:
> worst than that! the query looks for the foreign keys (and the  
> tables) using
> the function pg_table_is_visible(c.oid):
>
>       SELECT conname, pg_catalog.pg_get_constraintdef(oid, true) as  
> condef
>       FROM  pg_catalog.pg_constraint r
>       WHERE r.conrelid = (
>           SELECT c.oid FROM pg_catalog.pg_class c
>                        LEFT JOIN pg_catalog.pg_namespace n
>                        ON n.oid = c.relnamespace
>           WHERE c.relname = :table_name
>             AND pg_catalog.pg_table_is_visible(c.oid))
>             AND r.contype = 'f' ORDER BY 1
>
>
> I can't see any possible drawback of this feature, that makes it  
> possible to
> autoload tables in one schema referencing tables in another schema  
> that is
> visible anyhow. If there is a possibility of a mistake this means  
> the table
> should be specified by the schema (that's a different issue,  
> anyhow), but
> the fk are bound to their tables by r.conrelid = c.oid
>
> sandro
> *:-)
>
>
>> which is news to me; the query used to reflect foreign keys takes
>> table name into account, and a unit test which reflects anonymously-
>> created foreign keys from two different tables works fine (and always
>> has...).   can someone illustrate this problem for me ?
>
> -- 
> Sandro Dentella  *:-)
> http://www.tksql.org                    TkSQL Home page - My GPL work
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,  
> security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your  
> job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache  
> Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Sqlalchemy-users mailing list
> Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Sqlalchemy-users mailing list
Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users

Reply via email to