Re: [Django] #34059: Validation of check constraints on PostgreSQL & Oracle JSON fields produces invalid SQL

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Django

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 2:22:32 AM9/28/22
to django-...@googlegroups.com
#34059: Validation of check constraints on PostgreSQL & Oracle JSON fields produces
invalid SQL
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Dan LaManna | Owner: David
| Sanders
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: Database layer | Version: 4.1
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by David Sanders):

Thanks for the report Dan. Yes this is similar to #33905 👍

--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34059#comment:4>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

Django

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 2:41:38 AM9/28/22
to django-...@googlegroups.com
#34059: Validation of check constraints on PostgreSQL & Oracle JSON fields produces
invalid SQL
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Dan LaManna | Owner: David
| Sanders
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: Database layer | Version: 4.1
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Release blocker | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted

Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by Mariusz Felisiak):

* severity: Normal => Release blocker
* stage: Unreviewed => Accepted


Comment:

> Changing component to ORM because this is also an issue with Oracle:

... and `JSONField` doesn't live in `contrib.postgres` anymore.

Bug in 667105877e6723c6985399803a364848891513cc.

--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34059#comment:5>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages