failed SQL queries in the dynamic branch

[Jeff Mitchell]

Ah, cool, OK.  I saw that it was trying to insert items from the playlists 
table into playlists fix (similar to how the stats table was done), so I 
figured that there was probably something in the playlists table in the 
dynamic collection branch for it to actually insert :-)

--Jeff

On Sunday 16 July 2006 10:15, Andrew Turner wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I don't use it - this is just some upgrade code failing. The upgrade
> that it's performing is converting the URL column from the type
> VARCHAR(255) to VARBINARY(255) for MySQL (the 'upgrade' happens for
> other DBs too, but it ends up still as a VARCHAR(255) ). This is
> necessary as in MySQL, the VARCHAR type can only store a subset of
> valid URLs - it cannot store control characters eg unicode 0x82.
>
> This isn't a problem in any way, as long as you don't care whether the
> playlists table exists as, as far as I can tell, it probably won't for
> the average person running 1.4.1, even though you tried to create it
> before 1.4.1 was released.
>
> After the upgrade code has been run, the playlists table will
> definitely exist, so it really doesn't matter.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 16/07/06, Jeff Mitchell <kde-dev at emailgoeshere.com> wrote:
> > > As for the playlists table not existing - that is not a problem with
> > > the branch. That table should exist in trunk as of Persistent Tables
> > > Version 12, which is from the end of May. (revision 546372) . I would
> >
> > Andrew--
> >
> > What is the playlist table being used for?  I created the playlists table
> > a bit back to start thinking about making playlists exist in the database
> > as opposed to a directory of M3U files, but I haven't gotten around to
> > that yet. Alexandre and I had recently discussed working on this porting
> > as well as some other things related to playlists.
> >
> > What I'm getting at is that the schema for the playlists table was not
> > necessarily set, which I didn't think was an issue since no one was
> > actually using it.  Could you explain how it's being used, and whether
> > changes to the schema are going to be an issue for you?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff