Generation fails with the newest Postgres JDBC driver
Hi all,
See https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/17873#issuecomment-2659265627:
When using Postgres JDBC driver 42.7.4, it works fine. When using Postgres JDBC driver 42.7.5, generation of some tables (e.g. pgcatalog.pg_class) fails with
Error while generating table public.auth_client
Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Field "key_seq" is not contained in row type (
"PKTABLE_CAT",
"pg_namespace"."PKTABLE_SCHEM",
"pg_class"."PKTABLE_NAME",
"pg_attribute"."PKCOLUMN_NAME",
"FKTABLE_CAT",
"pg_namespace"."FKTABLE_SCHEM",
"pg_class"."FKTABLE_NAME",
"pg_attribute"."FKCOLUMN_NAME",
"KEY_SEQ",
"UPDATE_RULE",
"DELETE_RULE",
"pg_constraint"."FK_NAME",
"pg_class"."PK_NAME",
"DEFERRABILITY"
)
errors. I suppose that all you have to do is actually update Jooq, as as documented in 17873, an update of Jooq is already published.
Thanks a lot & Cheers Michael
I recommend setting the versions on the plugin on your own. The plugin will never be fast enough to update the dependency versions:
<plugin>
<groupId>org.testcontainers</groupId>
<artifactId>testcontainers-jooq-codegen-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>${testcontainers-jooq-codegen-maven-plugin.version}</version>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.jooq</groupId>
<artifactId>jooq-codegen</artifactId>
<version>${jooq.version}</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.testcontainers</groupId>
<artifactId>postgresql</artifactId>
<version>${testcontainers.version}</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.postgresql</groupId>
<artifactId>postgresql</artifactId>
<version>${postgresql.version}</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
...
</plugin>
I'm getting same problem. Is there any ETA of when this could be fixed?
Last comment is from almost year ago
Thanks.
@VicentValdes There is nothing Testcontainers can do because they would need to support all available jOOQ versions. Check my comment https://github.com/testcontainers/testcontainers-jooq-codegen-maven-plugin/issues/46#issuecomment-2668764049