Val,
You are right. Two tables with equal names in different schemas should
refer to two caches with unique names.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would let Vladimir confirm this, but I believe he talks about cache name,
> not table name. Cache name obviously has to be unique across all schemas,
> and attaching schema name to it makes sense to me.
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@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 <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@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 <
> > > dsetrak...@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 <dma...@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: "u...@ignite.apache.org" <u...@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.solomon...@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/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
