On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:34:07PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
