3 ms·
That was released more than two months ago, though. This point release is much smaller.
by forbiddenlake 4y ago
That was released more than two months ago, though. This point release is much smaller.
- xbar 4y agoi appreciate it. I would never touch a .0 release of a new version of SQLite. No shame against them or their fantastic quality--it's just that I have lived through literal decades of watching minor database bugs shatter data value and undermine all efficiency. When I see a .3 or better, I start thinking a version is usable. The fact the SQLite moves their quality needle this quickly is encouraging. But maybe .4 can go more quietly.
- chasil 4y agoYou really do not need to exercise such caution with SQLite. Because of the DO-178B status, SQLite is sufficiently reliable to be used with in-flight avionics (on Airbus A350 models, noted so far). The test suite requires every branch instruction to be exercised at the machine-language level, in both directions if conditional. The software that we are used to is not held to this exacting standard. If we were talking about Oracle or SQL Server, .0 version hesitance is valid, and SQLite tests have crashed both of them, repeatedly. Obviously, they cannot be used with applications requiring DO-178B compliance. This document is part of that testing compliance: https://www.sqlite.org/qmplan.html https://www.sqlite.org/qmplan.html
- pkhuong 4y agoAnd yet TFA shows that 3.39.0 introduced a new feature (right joins), and 3.39.1 fixes a logic bug in exactly that new feature. I suppose you're right that it's not a crash, just an incorrect result.
- chasil 4y agoI would also like to see SQLite (core) achieve compliance with the SQL/PSM standard from ISO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM