On 9/21/05, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's odd. > > What version of MySQL are you running?
I'm running 3.23.56-Max, the same database that I originally installed on when I first installed Roller way back in 2002. I talked with Mark Matthews (MySQL JDBC Guy) and he said that this version does support InnoDB, but I'd likely have to do some sort of migration. My ISP has said that if I want InnoDB, he's probably just move me to a 4.1 server. Matt > > I've been using InnoDb, transactions, rollback etc. since starting to > use Roller with MySQL (4.1.7). There is no change required to the > createdb script if your database is setup to use innodb as the default > engine. > > I think InnoDB became the "default default" (set as default storage > engine by default in the installation) in MySQL 4.1.5 at least on > Windows, and I thought also on Linux/Unix. > > My own MySQL 4.1.7 Linux Roller 1.2 installation is running on it, and I > don't remember having done anything special. (And my my.cnf only sets > default-character-set=UTF8, nothing else). > > If running MySQL 4.1.5 or higher, try this check on yours (connect using > the mysql client program, then at its prompt type): > > mysql> show table status from roller like 'rolleruser'; > > Here "roller" is the db name, which may differ in yours. Look at the > Engine column in the result. Mine is "InnoDB". > > --a. > > Allen Gilliland wrote: > > >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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >
