Closed corviday closed 5 years ago
Why don't we change the name of this index to be more concise? This is probably running up against Postgres's maximum identifier length. This value is technically is configurable, but why not make this reasonable so that it doesn't require tweaking PG's run time config?
As the author of this august and explicit identifier, I must ... agree. What was I thinking?
Great! Have we actually run this migration? If not, fixing it is easy. If we have, things get a bit trickier...
The only place the migration has been run is on various disposable test databases. It hasn't been run on anything real yet.
The following error occurs when updating a database from version 614911daf883 to version 12f290b63791 using alembic:
Downgrading sqlalchemy to version 1.2.0 from version 1.3.3 fixes this issue. So the probable long-term solution is just to pin sqlalchemy at ~1.2 in requirements.txt.
I was unable to find any explicit mention of adding a chartacter limit to identifiers in the sqlalchemy changelogs, though change 3989 seems like it might be relevant.