Both Users and Sessions are referenced by Sessions_Metadata

Class::DBI doc says has_many is used to declare that another table is referencing us, so both Users and Sessions need a has_many(sessions_metadata)?

I tried this in sessions:

__PACKAGE__->has_many(
                      sessions_metadata=>['EP::Common::DBI::Sessions_M
+etadata' => 'session_id' ]
                      => 'id'
);
[download]

sessions_metadata
   Column    |          Type          | Modifiers 
-------------+------------------------+-----------
 session_id  | character(32)          | not null
 username    | character varying(40)  | 
 create_date | character varying(100) | 
 expire      | character varying(100) | 
 query_id    | character varying(50)  | 
Indexes: sessions_metadata_pkey primary key btree (session_id)
Foreign Key constraints: $1 FOREIGN KEY (session_id) REFERENCES sessio
+ns(id) ON UPDATE NO ACTION ON DELETE NO ACTION,
                         $2 FOREIGN KEY (username) REFERENCES users(us
+ername) ON UPDATE NO ACTION ON DELETE NO ACTION

sessions

  Column   |     Type      | Modifiers 
-----------+---------------+-----------
 id        | character(32) | not null
 a_session | text          | 
Indexes: sessions_pkey primary key btree (id)

users

    Column    |          Type          |     Modifiers      
--------------+------------------------+--------------------
 username     | character varying(40)  | not null
 password     | character varying(40)  | not null
 salt         | smallint               | not null
 session_only | smallint               | not null default 0
 first_name   | character varying(40)  | not null
 last_name    | character varying(40)  | not null
 institute    | character varying(255) | 
 department   | character varying(255) | 
 address      | character varying(255) | 
 telephone    | character varying(255) | 
 email        | character varying(100) | not null
Indexes: users_pkey primary key btree (username)
[download]

Seems to me that your relationships are a bit off. At first i thought that Sessions_Metadata was a cross reference between Users and Sessions. But it is not. Instead, it is extra info for a session. Now, if this were my project, i would only have two tables: Users and Sessions. It seems to me that everything in Sessions_Meta data relates to a session, therefore, why not just put those attributes in the Sessions table?

sessions
   Column    |          Type          | Modifiers 
-------------+------------------------+-----------
 id          | character(32)          | not null
 a_session   | text                   | 
 username    | character varying(40)  | 
 create_date | character varying(100) | 
 expire      | character varying(100) | 
 query_id    | character varying(50)  | 

It will greatly simply your task. Also ... why are you using a character type for the primary key? You should be using an "auto-incremented" integer, preferably unsigned. Likewise, you should also be using the same for your primary key in the Users table.

UPDATE:
I think that is correct, CassJ.

jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

It's not my DB. I don't know anything much about DB design, so I was just using what I was given. I don't see any reason why we sessions and sessions_metadata couldn't be merged though.
I'll give it a go with my local version (might take a while!).

If I do that then I'll have just a sessions table with a FK to users - right?

So Sessions.pm

has_a(username=>'Users')
[download]

and Users

has_many(sessions=>[Sessions=>'username']=>'username)
[download]

Does that sound right?

Cxx