You can set the permissions for the table with: GRANT SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE ON TABLE [SchemaName].openjpa_sequence_table TO [UserName];
*NOTE: This Sequence Table was autogenerated by openJPA - you name might be different! John > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Marco de Booij [mailto:mdeb...@scarlet.be] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012 22:08 > An: users@openjpa.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Postgres sequence: current transaction is aborted > > Hello Kevin, > > Thanks for the help. Your work around solved my problem. I > made my application user the owner of the sequence and I was > able to insert my rows. I could not find how/if I could grant > the rights. > > I hope that the 'final' solution works without this ALTER > SEQUENCE statement. I personally do not like to use the owner > of objects in a datasource. Applications should not be > allowed to change database objects. They only should change > data. However if you do not give a SQL script with your > application then you need to have openJPA creating the objects :-) > > There is 1 big disadvantage. With increment of 50 you get big > holes in your primary keys. My first key was 53 (the current > value was 3 before I > started) and after I restarted Tomee and inserted another row > the primary key went from 171 to 203. I set the > allocationSize to 2 for smaller holes. > > Regards, > > Marco > > Op 19-06-12 00:06, Kevin Sutter schreef: > > Hi Marco, > > The trace from Postgres is helping to understand the issue. > I think > > the basic problem is that the application doesn't have proper > > permissions to update (alter) the sequence: > > > > 2012-06-18 20:17:28 CEST ERROR: must be owner of relation > > seq_i18n_codes > > 2012-06-18 20:17:28 CEST STATEMENT: ALTER SEQUENCE > > DOOS.SEQ_I18N_CODES INCREMENT BY 50 > > > > If the permissions for this sequence can be set to allow for this > > "alter sequence..." statement, then you would be in the clear. > > Unfortunately, I am not a Postgres expert, so I don't know > the magic > > incantation to allow for this. But, if this can be figured > out then > > you would be in much better shape. > > > > It looks like this whole issue is coming about due to the changes > > introduced with OpenJPA-1376 and OpenJPA-2069. The > configuration of > > sequences was not properly implemented in the first place. The > > parameters were not properly applied to the sequence creation. As > > part of that fix, it was determined to always execute the "alter > > sequence.." statement to ensure that the sequence in the database > > matched the expectations of the sequence definition. This "alter > > sequence.." statement must be acceptable to all of the other > > databases, just not Postgres due to the permissions thing. > > > > As a side issue... Your idea of setting the allocationSize to 1 > > should have been a good workaround. Unfortunately, the > generation of > > the "alter sequence.." statement has a problem -- as you have > > discovered. Since the allocationSize is not greater than > 1, we quit > > generating the "alter sequence.." statement and we end up with the > > syntax error as you reported below (OpenJPA-2196). And, > since we blindly issue the "alter sequence.." > > statement, there is not a way to disable the generation and > execution > > of this statement. So, two issues surfaced with that workaround... > > > > All of this is saying that I don't have a quick answer for > you... If > > the owner permission thing can be figured out for Postgres, that's > > going to be the quickest workaround. Otherwise, it looks > like we have > > 2 or 3 problems that need a JIRA resolution. > > > > Kevin > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Marco de > Booij<mdeb...@scarlet.be> wrote: > > > >
