Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Talk:EclipseLink/UserGuide/JPA/Advanced JPA Development/Schema Generation/Appending strings to CREATE TABLE statements"

Line 1: Line 1:
 
[1]
 
[1]
  
The following sentences are derived from {https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214519 Bug 214519]. (In fact it seems to be the reason for submitting the bug.)
+
The following sentences are derived from [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=214519 Bug 214519]. (In fact it seems to be the reason for submitting the bug.)
  
 
"This can be useful, for example, to create tables that are transactional, by appending <tt>engine=InnoDB</tt> to the end of the creation statement. This specifies that the MySQL InnoDB storage engine will be used."
 
"This can be useful, for example, to create tables that are transactional, by appending <tt>engine=InnoDB</tt> to the end of the creation statement. This specifies that the MySQL InnoDB storage engine will be used."
  
 
Should I leave that in? It looks like that is the default engine in MySQL 5.5, so maybe it isn't a good example anymore.
 
Should I leave that in? It looks like that is the default engine in MySQL 5.5, so maybe it isn't a good example anymore.

Revision as of 10:28, 3 February 2011

[1]

The following sentences are derived from Bug 214519. (In fact it seems to be the reason for submitting the bug.)

"This can be useful, for example, to create tables that are transactional, by appending engine=InnoDB to the end of the creation statement. This specifies that the MySQL InnoDB storage engine will be used."

Should I leave that in? It looks like that is the default engine in MySQL 5.5, so maybe it isn't a good example anymore.

Back to the top