I have been thinking about the same thing and it's definitely a little complicated.
I agree that making the createdb script use InnoDB starting with Roller 2.0 is a good start, but then you create an opportunity for things to get out of sync. i.e. the 3.0 upgrade script would have to use InnoDB tables, so old MyISAM users would be facing the same mixed table type upgrade situation. I think the best thing is to offer a MyISAM to InnoDB script which can be run independently of the 2.0 upgrade script. -- Allen On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 13:49, Matt Raible wrote: > After thinking about this a bit more - is this really a good idea? It > might really screw up existing users. Migrating from an existing > database that uses MyISAM to InnoDB might be pretty tough. I would > say that the createdb.sql script use InnoDB, but leave it out of > upgrade scripts. > > Matt > > On 9/20/05, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > On 9/20/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > team, > > > > > > how do folks feel about making the mysql schema default to using InnoDB > > > type mysql tables? which table type to choose is a pretty complex > > > issue, but the big bonus for InnoDB is that it offers referential > > > integrity. right now a default install of Roller on mysql will yield > > > all MyISAM tables, which means that our foreign keys mean nothing. > > > InnoDB would help fix this. > > > > > > what do others think? should we make InnoDB the default table type? > > > > > > -- Allen > > > > > > > >
