I always understood the "lifting the uniqueness" as allowing to have
the same name used for different resource types. So the new
natrual_key (aka unique_together) would be ["name", "type"].

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:55 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Grant Gainey <ggai...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:14 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I am going to start by writing a 
>>> task to remove this name uniqueness constraint for repositories.
>>
>>
>> Import/export relies on non-pulp_id-uniqueness to identify Things. I was 
>> assuming we were talking about adding pulp_type to the Repository 
>> uniqueness-constraint, so that a given name/type would be unique (which 
>> would require a single change to RepositoryResource)
>>
>> If we're talking about just removing the uniqueness-constraint altogether, 
>> then life gets a lot harder.
>>
>> G
>> --
>> Grant Gainey
>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev


_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Reply via email to