Fix Indices Related Operation at Migration #99
Merged
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
Also rearrange sql.Result and err declaration.
- Pass args as variadic params - Tests for index operations - Refactor fetchColumns
bradrydzewski
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2014
Fix Indices Related Operation at Migration
johannesHarness
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2023
johannesHarness
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Keep indices intact when columns renamed.
Tests included.
As discussed in #83, this is using:
instead of
PRAGMAstuff for fetching index's ddl.Thanks to @bradrydzewski for the hint 👍
I also add migration script generator to ensure we have incremental Revision number.
I also want to notice that the
AddColumnmethod is still translated directly to SQLiteALTER TABLEwhich means we still have the limitations (e.g. can't add column withPRIMARY KEYand/orUNIQUEconstraints), I think this is worth another discussion, and eventually this may turn into whether we want to stay and fix these or move to another rdbms, but I wont fuss about it right now.Thanks