Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGt6o8=q5boPYdA7m1Z1ns+orAZXuEHLBWjASRakSYPjBwnTEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1507371468439-0.post@n6.nabble.com> <CAK0qHnp7cAra78_LgqN2VVOAQfqcAT+0yEX4OzP3FG8pq63MnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoXMX-z_UNB4jDe9K_tR61eNpR+GV79tqi8+npkx0+Aeig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGt6o8mnxP6qBaDtVPFzHwgG6hduW37Eok+nosVfD9vUNe+z1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoUAcnRkVZGNU0GdGUNK_M35hzRNn1tH97JpFpsC4KqvNA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGt6o8=q5boPYdA7m1Z1ns+orAZXuEHLBWjASRakSYPjBwnTEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:48:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+0=VoUvRSYE9rwjbEfy=BMbS2GaOeFfu-zXJrktYVGYYkhbcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using JDBC thin driver
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144cc0434d92b055b227bed"
archived-at: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 19:49:00 -0000

--001a1144cc0434d92b055b227bed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Because it should be possible to have two tables with the same name in
> different schemas.
>

Still confused. If we have multiple schemas with the same table/cache name,
the schema name should be enough to identify a table. Currently, using your
words, the solution looks like a "hack". Why not just remove the prefix and
check for uniqueness within a schema?

D.


>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dima,
> > >
> > > To maintain unique cache names across the cluster.
> > >
> >
> > Why not simply check for uniqueness at creation time? Why introduce some
> > automatic prefix?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cross-sending to dev@
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to append SQL_PUBLIC_ to all table names?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com>
> > > > Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:01 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Why SQL_PUBLIC is appending to Cache name while using
> JDBC
> > > > thin driver
> > > > To: "user@ignite.apache.org" <user@ignite.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Austin,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it will be possible to pass a cache name you like into CREATE
> > TABLE
> > > > command in 2.3. The release should be available in a couple of weeks.
> > > > Follow our announcements.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, October 7, 2017, austin solomon <
> > > austin.solomon007@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am using Ignite version 2.2.0, and I have created a table using
> > > > > IgniteJdbcThinDriver.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I checked the cache in Ignite Visor I'm seeing
> > > > SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE-NAME}
> > > > > is appended.
> > > > > Is their a way to get rid of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to remove the SQL_PUBLIC from the cache name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Austin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a1144cc0434d92b055b227bed--