On Jan 10, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Romy wrote:
> Not sure what you mean, as I've seen hybrid setups before.
I'm pretty sure if you try to make a foreign key from an InnoDB table to a
MyISAM table, it will fail.
>
> In any case, thanks for helping me narrow this down. I need to decide
> whether I'll
yah MySQL doesn't really operate with a mixture.
On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Romy wrote:
> Face palm.. missed the forest for the trees.
>
> Does this mean both tables would need to be InnoDB ?
>
> On Jan 10, 7:10 am, Michael Bayer wrote:
>> One important change here is to change the engine ty
One important change here is to change the engine type to InnoDB, otherwise
transactions are entirely meaningless with MySQL.
If I use InnoDB, the end result of "used" is 0 in all cases. If I don't and
use MyISAM, the end result of "used" is 1 in all cases, regardless of whether
InviteCode is
I don't really understand that test since its calling first() on a nonexistent
InviteCode (the table is empty), and seems to be testing something about an
IntegrityError on a completely different table so I can't really see what it is
you're trying to achieve.
Below is a test case that includes
On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Romy wrote:
> Okay. In assembling a test case I've noticed the following behavior.
> When the mapped object is created before the begin(), the bug is
> reproducible. When it's created after the begin(), the rollback
> happens correctly and the 'bug' disappears. Specifi
yeah there's not really enough detail here to produce an explanation, you'd
need to narrow it down into a self-contained test case.
On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Romy wrote:
> I believe it's both mapped and present in the session -- the log
> output seems to confirm it:
>
> [I 110108 22:40:30 bas
