Bug #25024 ODBC - TEXT/LARGE VARCHAR MAPPING

Description:
I have MySQL version 4 with ODBC 3.5.10 installed and it works fine with Visual Foxpro and DBF files - mapping of TEXT formats to MEMO field type.  I just installed version 5.0 with ODBC 3.5.12 (I also tried ODBC 3.5.10 but it crashes) on a second machine and I cannot get ODBC to MAP to MEMO field type - no matter what MySQL TEXT field type I use it now maps to character (0).  The LONGBLOB maps to the General Field just fine in both environments.  I think it may have something to do with the change I found in documentation in way MySQL stores large text fields in version 5.0 - the ODBC driver should still sense the TEXT fields and move them to Memo rather than character - or any text type field larger than 254 bytes should map to MEMO types.  I believe this is an ODBC issue because it should not matter how data is stored but how it is declared.

How to repeat:
I can repeat by running installing and running same software against either versions on the 2 machines - verify by trapping in debug and looking at mapped fields.

Suggested fix:
Make ODBC map fields by field declaration and or declared max length - appears to be related to way data was stored rather than declared.

Hi Jeff and thanks for your problem report.

> ODBC is a standard and ODBC should map correctly ...
I see no SQL log nor did you provide table structure to test with so I can reverse this to "FoxPro should map correctly", can't I?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbc/htm/odbcsql_data_typ...

> I cannot find a way to map to Memo fields.
Can you please provide me with info on how to repeat this problem outside FoxPro (as I don't have it) so I can test? Does FoxPro have fields editor so you can define field type yourself?

You can try MySQL connector/ODBC v5 as it is designed to work with MySQL server 5.x (mind you, it's still beta).

No feedback was provided for this bug for over a month, so it is
being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the
information that was originally requested, please do so and change
the status of the bug back to "Open".

Duplicate of bug#30890