[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ledger SMB


On 20 Apr 2007, at 04:40, David Bandel wrote:


On 4/19/07, Stroller <..hidden..> wrote:


On 20 Apr 2007, at 01:06, David Bandel wrote:
> ...
> And BTW, moving from SQL-Ledger 2.627 (db version 2.6.12) to LSMB
> provokes a nasty error message regarding the defaults table (which has 
> changed completely).  Is there currently an update script for this?

Did you run:
    ledgersmb/sql/legacy/Pg-upgrade-2.6.12-2.6.17.sql
    ledgersmb/sql/legacy/Pg-upgrade-2.6.17-2.6.18.sql
    ledgersmb/sql/legacy/Pg-upgrade-2.6.18-2.6.19.sql


ouch -- looks like ASCII ordering hosed me.  Might I suggest, to get
these into order, that the naming be changed just slightly:
Pg-upgrade-01-2.6.7-2.6.12.sql
Pg-upgrade-02-2.6.12-2.6.17.sql
Pg-upgrade-03-2.6.17-2.6.18.sql

note the -##-between the Pg-upgrade and the version numbers.  The way
the numbering jumps around, the filename order is all scrambled.  Took
me a while to find the above 3 even after you pointed them out.
I said "cc me in", just in case you were in a desperate hurry to get your DB fixed - so I could share my _little_ knowledge with you.
I'm afraid I _didn't_ say this because I know a lot about Ledger-SMB - I've not a dev here, and I'm not able to act on suggestions like that. 

If you use GNU ls, you can however us `ls -v` to sort in version-order.


After running the Pg-upgrade-2.6.18-2.6.19.sql script, I noticed
errors.  Looking into it, I had to run:
ALTER TABLE public.<tablename> OWNER TO "ledgersmb";
on the following tables:
recurring
recurringemail
recurringprint
status
Then rerun the Pg-upgrade-2.6.18-2.6.19.sql script again.

Are your tables owned by postgres by any chance?


Yup, looks like it.

Stroller