Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

2003 17:46 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required Cal Evans wrote: I humbly submit an apology. You are correct. This is a bug (No it is NOT a feature) While you may not like it, this definitely is a feature (or an intentional design decision, at least

RE: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: Martes, 07 de Octubre de 2003 17:46 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required Cal Evans wrote: > I humbly submit an apology. You are correct. This is a bug (No it is > NOT a feature) While you may no

Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

Michael Stassen wrote: Cal Evans wrote: or '' (empty string). You can change this behavior by building your own mysql from source with the -DDONT_USE_DEFAULT_FIELDS compile option. Thanks, I'm off to recompile my development server. you should be able to define a field as NOT NULL without a de

RE: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

null vs MSAccess required Cal Evans wrote: > I humbly submit an apology. You are correct. This is a bug (No it is > NOT a feature) While you may not like it, this definitely is a feature (or an intentional design decision, at least), not a bug. See the docs at <http://www.mysql.c

Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

Cal Evans wrote: I humbly submit an apology. You are correct. This is a bug (No it is NOT a feature) While you may not like it, this definitely is a feature (or an intentional design decision, at least), not a bug. See the docs at . The

Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

Cal Evans, maybe you can try above create statement and email MySQL output? -Original Message- From: Cal Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:04 PM To: Arūnas Milašauskas Cc: Fortuno, Adam; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess requ

RE: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

output? -Original Message- From: Cal Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:04 PM To: Arūnas Milašauskas Cc: Fortuno, Adam; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required I hate to disagree with you but in the 30+ databases I've

Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

ue it is on other versions too. Regards, Arunas -Original Message- From: Cal Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:51 PM To: Arūnas Milašauskas Cc: Fortuno, Adam; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required Of course the OT NU

RE: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

Fortuno, Adam; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required Of course the OT NULL is not firing, you put DEFAULT ''. This defeats the purpose of NOT NULL since every new record written has a default value that IS NOT NULL. (Whether the user entered the field or

Re: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

ame field to NULL, you'll get a runtime error. Regards, Adam -Original Message- From: Arūnas Milašauskas Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:33 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required MSAccess as frontend :) sorry, you're right. So,

FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

-Original Message- From: Arūnas Milašauskas Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:33 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required MSAccess as frontend :) sorry, you're right. So, I defined column without default value, but nothing changed... I

FW: MySQL not null vs MSAccess required

MSAccess as frontend :) sorry, you're right. So, I defined column without default value, but nothing changed... I still can enter empty values into field :( Now, actualy I want MySQL to rise run-time error, because there are many forms in access and DB structure is changing ... I