This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2016-06-28
Channels
- # admin-announcements (2)
- # alda (5)
- # arachne (4)
- # beginners (49)
- # boot (92)
- # capetown (3)
- # cider (9)
- # cljs-dev (6)
- # cljs-edn (1)
- # cljsjs (29)
- # cljsrn (4)
- # clojure (65)
- # clojure-android (1)
- # clojure-berlin (2)
- # clojure-chicago (2)
- # clojure-gamedev (2)
- # clojure-greece (11)
- # clojure-india (1)
- # clojure-japan (1)
- # clojure-new-zealand (2)
- # clojure-quebec (2)
- # clojure-russia (49)
- # clojure-spec (73)
- # clojure-uk (38)
- # clojurescript (118)
- # clojutre (4)
- # community-development (17)
- # cursive (3)
- # data-science (1)
- # datascript (1)
- # datomic (17)
- # emacs (6)
- # euroclojure (2)
- # events (2)
- # immutant (30)
- # keechma (11)
- # leiningen (4)
- # luminus (2)
- # off-topic (19)
- # om (14)
- # onyx (28)
- # planck (9)
- # re-frame (11)
- # reagent (35)
- # ring-swagger (4)
- # schema (4)
- # slack-help (6)
- # spacemacs (2)
- # specter (11)
- # testing (4)
- # untangled (88)
- # utah-clojurians (2)
- # vim (2)
- # yada (9)
can i restore a database that was backed up as name A but restore it to name B -- the transactor has no existing copies of the db in storage?
@robert-stuttaford: sure can "Restore can rename databases. However, you cannot restore a single database to two different URIs within the same storage.” — http://docs.datomic.com/backup.html#restoring
thanks, Stuart. i thought so, but i wasn't sure
@conaw have you found an answer?
@leontalbot: my answer was to only recursively pull explicit relationships, and then pull wildcard for each of those separately
Is it possible to enforce Datomic to do a write and fail with a uniqueness conflict if it will do an update, that is if a lookup-ref already exists?
The driving force for this is to explicitly separate creating new entities from updating existing ones.
It seems like one possible solution is to create a database function that does a lookup for any possible look-up refs and fails the transaction if results come back, but I was hoping there may be a more straightforward solution.
@pheuter: I believe if you use :db.unique/value
rather than :db.unique/identity
, you'll get the fail rather than update behavior (see http://docs.datomic.com/identity.html)
Oh I see: > Unique values have the same semantics as unique identities, with one critical difference: Attempts to assert a new tempid with a unique value already in the database will cause an IllegalStateException.
exactly
no problem