InnoDB vs MyISAM tables

[Ian Monroe]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Prompted by the comment,
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187085#c3
> "Amarok's embedded mysql database does _not_ support the InnoDB backend,
> only MyISAM. The cause of this is most likely an incorrectly compiled mysql
> package, so please ask your distribution."

That bug shows everything I hate about public bug reporting systems
lol. But yea there's a legit problem.

> I'd like to explore this issue further.  I contacted our mysql maintainer,
> and our builds are (supposed to) default to MyISAM tables, but for whatever
> reason amarok is creating InnoDB ones.  I assume this is leading a whole lot
> of bad.

Yea I agree this sucks.

> In the bug, I made a mostly naive comment:
> does amarok have any buildtime or runtime checks for MyISAM functionality?
> If not, why not?  It would also appear amarok doesn't explicitly specify
> MyISAM tables, again, why not?

It does actually. We ask for it in the initialization of MySQL.
Despite this it prepares innodb data files, but it doesn't actually
store any data in them. At least this is the case for me.

> All tested here using mysql-5.0.77.
>
> So, where do we go from here?  Am I missing anything (obvious or otherwise)?

Prepare a bug report for upstream I think.

Ian