SQL in the base system (Was: New FreeBSD package system (a.k.a. Daemon Package System (dps)))

[Jos Backus]

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:34:07PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <20070511165612.GA48097 at lizzy.catnook.local>, Jos Backus <jos at catnook.com> typed:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:23:00AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >  How robust is it - can a corrupt block fry the entire database?
> > 
> > Dunno, but "Transactions are atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable (ACID)
> > even after system crashes and power failures.". So it appears to try hard to
> > minimize the chance of corruption.
> 
> Right. This is a good thing. However, the db *will* become corrupt. A
> disk block will fail to read, whatever.  The question is asking how
> much data will be lost outside the corrupt data block?
 
It's a trade-off. Use SMART to monitor your disks, or whatever. Dealing with a
gazillion different file formats is a PITA from an automation perspective.

> > > How about portability - can I move the file to a completely
> > > different architecture and still get the data from it?
> > "Database files can be freely shared between machines with different byte
> > orders."
> 
> That sounds like a "somewhat". The desired answer is "If the version
> of sqllite runs on a platform, all database files will work on it."
> That they felt the need to point out that they are byte order
> independent implies that other architectural issues may be a
> problem. Of course, it could be that nobody has asked the right people
> that question.

Probably. Why don't you? :-)

> > Also, the code is in the public domain.
> 
> Wow. That's everylicensecompliant.

I sense some sarcasm. Would the GPL have been an improvement in the context of
this discussion?

-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com