Let's be clear. What happens if it can't create the default engine
type? Or is that impossible?
Brian Aker wrote:
Hi!
I think an error is appropriate. If you want default you just leave
off the specifier.
Here is the thing... on replication do we want some magic here or not?
AKA if I create a table locally, should it be replicated as that
engine (I think it should be). Should a slave have to explicitly
change the engine type?
Cheers,
-Brian
On Dec 18, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Brian Aker wrote:
Hi!
On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Jim Starkey wrote:
set sql_mode := STOP_DOING_STUPID_THINGS
We don't have sql_mode... so we will just have to do the right thing
by default :)
Yes, folks, and this is what Lee is asking for...what is "the right
thing"? I liked Jim's suggestions (INNODB OR DEFAULT or the
TRANSACTIONAL keyword...) but for right now, we need to decide
whether it is the "right thing" to throw an error or a warning.
After that, we can look at ease-of-use (or hard-to-misuse) changes.
So, error or warning?
-jay
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
--
Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
