- Issue created by @rp7
- 🇧🇪Belgium rp7
Not a real solution, but here's a quick workaround for whoever needs it (we aren't using the REST storage client, so the unique index is not really important for us anyway).
- 🇫🇷France guignonv
Yep, I agree it would be better to use a hash for a unique index that would be way faster to compare. I'm surprised I didn't do that (or maybe I did in a try but did not integrate it in a final version... whatever...).
Maybe the hash could even replace the qid. Feel free to investigate and do a PR. I don't have time right now (coming 1 or 2 weeks) to fix that but I will later if you can't do it. - 604cd3d7 committed on 3.0.x
Issue #3475768: xntt_rest_queries table: Specified key was too long; max...
- 604cd3d7 committed on 3.0.x
- 🇫🇷France guignonv
It should be fixed by last commit (604cd3d7). Feel free to re-open if not.
- 🇫🇷France guignonv
A line of code was missing in the update... :-) Fixed by commit 08990d6c.
- 🇧🇪Belgium rp7
@guignonv Thanks!
I'm spotting an issue though when upgrading from 2.x:> [error] Cannot add field 'xntt_rest_queries.ephash': field already exists. > [error] Update failed: external_entities_update_93015
Probably because when I'm upgrading my project, external_entities_update_9305() is also being run (which installs the xntt_rest_queries table).
See patch attached. Maybe we should add something like this?
- 🇫🇷France guignonv
Your patch looks good to me. It should be enough to fix the problem you noticed.
- be3ced35 committed on 3.0.x
Issue #3475768 by rp7: xntt_rest_queries table: Specified key was too...
- be3ced35 committed on 3.0.x
Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.