3 ms·
I am guessing that "SQLite does not accept contributions" and "the industry is going in a new direction" are what most find objectionable. SQLite cannot accept
by chasil 4y ago
I am guessing that "SQLite does not accept contributions" and "the industry is going in a new direction" are what most find objectionable.
SQLite cannot accept random contributions. It's on A350 flight systems, where failure is not an option. The maintainers are able to uphold this quality, but random contributors are not.
It appears that the true desire is log shipping (archived logs, transaction logs, etc.) - the ability to move transaction data between databases, perhaps in multimaster.
The only way such functionality is getting into SQLite is if the project agrees to write it, likely for major funding.
A fork implementing these features will be regarded with interest, but will not be accepted without substantial rework.
- lonjil 4y ago> SQLite cannot accept random contributions. It's on A350 flight systems, where failure is not an option. The maintainers are able to uphold this quality, but random contributors are not. Do you think Airbus updates their copy of SQLite to the newest version constantly? Bugs make it into SQLite every release, and no released version of SQLite is known to be DO-178B compliant. Seems a lot more likely that it is as Dr Hipp said a few years ago [1], that some customers have qualified specific versions of SQLite in specific configurations for use in applications that require DO-178B compliance. He says that he thinks that those companies certified it to D or C level, which is non-critical stuff, like failure leading to passenger discomfort, e.g. they may be using SQLite in the in flight infotainment system.
- threatofrain 4y agoHow is that inflammatory? SQLite not accepting contributions is their own policy. Saying that the industry wants different features... is that inflammatory? This new fork wants contributors, so of course this is going to be a distinction of their project. Linux is used to run the world and there are failures as well as contributors.
- chasil 4y agoThere might be more subtlety than is immediately obvious. It is implied that SQLite is not run properly because it is not responsive to many of its users. User contributors will be sorely disappointed. There is an assertion that SQLite is behind the times. It has a laser focus on reliability, which hold back features desired by some. The article disregards the TH3 testing compliance, and asserts that forks are inevitable, which is not true. TH3 is a moat around SQLite that dissuades such attempts, and ignoring this fact also likely invokes umbrage. There is also a mention of the code of conduct that SQLite has chosen. It does not inspire universal admiration. The article wants the following, and some are unlikely to ever appear upstream: 1. We would like to use io_uring and asynchronous interfaces 2. We would like to provide replication hooks for distributed systems 3. We would like to allow for WASM-based user-defined functions
- matesz 4y ago4. We would like to use eBPF
- fmajid 4y agoYou don't need to fork SQLite to get log-shipping replication: https://litestream.io https://litestream.io
- chasil 4y agoMultimaster?
- eatonphil 4y ago> SQLite cannot accept random contributions. It's on A350 flight systems, where failure is not an option. The maintainers are able to uphold this quality, but random contributors are not. NASA uses nodejs and kubernetes. Everyone's safety threshold and threat model is not the same. https://mobile.twitter.com/gitlab/status/1174427375347666944?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/gitlab/status/1174427375347666944...
- chasil 4y agoDoes the FAA concede the sunset of DO-178B?