use unique name for backing index of unique constraints #555
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi @chrstnbrn , thanks for the PR! Seems it would be applicable for Hibernate 6 too, right? |
|
Yes, I think so. |
…s case we still using the table name + random identifier.
filipelautert
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes #411 and maybe also #436
#385 introduced a change that set the name of the backing index of unique constraints to
<TABLE_NAME>_IX. However, this causes issues when there is more than one unique constraint for a table. The unique constraint ofcolumnAwill be connected to the backing index ofcolumnB. This will make theUniqueConstraintComparator.findDifferencesmethod come to the conclusion, that the unique constraint changed even though it didn't. As a result the unique constraint will be dropped and recreated.I fixed this by changing the backing index name to
<UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME>_IX. It fixes the issue in the test case I modified, but I'm not sure if this could cause other problems.