Hi Keven,
Oh.
The same GRANT will work though - no need to play with ownership.
Cheers!
John
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kevin Sutter [mailto:kwsutter@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012 15:32
> An: users@openjpa.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Postgres sequence: current transaction is aborted
>
> Hi John,
> In this case, Marco was using a database Sequence, not the
> OpenJPA sequence table. There was an issue with having
> permissions to alter the Sequence with Postgres. Just wanted
> to clarify. Thanks!
>
> Kevin
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Boblitz John
> <John.Boblitz@bertschi.com>wrote:
>
> > 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:mdebooy@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<mdebooy@scarlet.be> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|