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

Are you serious? Its certainly a feature I can do without. Just one more idiosyncrasy to remember for another RDBMS. Regards, Adam -Original Message- From: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: MySQL not

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

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 not. remove the DEFAULT form the table definition and leave the NOT NULL. This will prevent A