Jens Schauder
Jens Schauder
We need to have a dedicated `schema` attribute in the `@Table` annotation.
A separate schema attribute was introduced with d12146d78c54c4f65b0f420a36596395a747f586 which is part of the 2.4 release. Could you please verify that this resolves the issue?
There are two things I'm currently aware of that we need to look out for. 1. Backward compatibility. It would be nice if we can do the change in a...
No, the problem is that Collections and similar get treated in a special way since they normally define the structure of the expected database schema. Therefore conversions so far aren't...
This behaviour is actually intended this way, and probably quite some users probably depend on it by now. Therefore the fix should probably be to document it accordingly.
We decided to split this issue into three. The current one should be just the documentation update. #1161 makes the behavior configurable. #1162 switches the default with the 3.0 release.
This would probably fixed by #1119, a PR for #1089
By "use MYSCHEMA as default schema" you mean the `NamingStrategy` you showed, right? I can't see the mistake in the insert statement. Can you connect to the database with the...
That is ... interesting. I'll need a reproducer to understand what is going on here.
I can't access that reproducer. Also the github user doesn't have any public repositories. Is it private maybe?