On 12 Mar 2007, at 11:57, Chad MILLER wrote:
> Hi Pete. Leaving aside for a moment the architectural decisions
> (which I'll ask about internally), here's my review of the patch.
On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:47, Chad MILLER wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:28, Pete Harlan wrote:
>> Thank you very much for reviewing my patch. I'll come up with
>> another
>> one to address your points, and I'll submit it with a feature-request
>> bug report as you suggest.
>
> Hi Pete. Great! To be clear for others, you did the right thing
> in mailing first. I'd rather see the idea posted before a bug
> filed to track it.
Alright Pete, good(-ish) news and bad news:
I heard from our architectural gurus, and the verdict is that
additional sql_modes are Bad. In this case, you're trying to work
around the fact that BLOBs don't take default values. The correct
solution, then is to change that, rather than pack "emptiness" and
"defaultness" -- two bits of information -- into one bit of a SQL
mode. Imagine the next person wanting ZERO_DEFAULT_FOR_BLOB, et c.
Those are headaches we want to avoid, and so we wouldn't apply the
patch as you've suggested. Sorry!
The good news is that I can't think of a reason that adding support
for default values for BLOBs would be hard. It's a bit of a mystery
to me that it isn't implemented, to be honest. It's probably a hold-
over from the pre-5.0 days. Unifying the types so they all work the
same is a task that's both "sexy" and obviously right, and it
probably rips out some special-case code. What's not to like?!
Anyway, do you agree, Pete, that adding BLOB DEFAULT '' makes more
sense, from a maintenance standpoint? Do you think you'd be
interested in working on it?
- chad
--
Chad Miller, Software Developer chad@stripped
MySQL Inc., www.mysql.com
Orlando, Florida, USA 13-20z, UTC-0400
Office: +1 408 213 6740 sip:6740@stripped
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] This is a digitally signed message part PGP.sig
