4 ms·
Giving developers that option would require SQLite to change the way it writes WALs, which would increase overhead. Checksum corruptions can happen without any
by lxgr 1y ago
Giving developers that option would require SQLite to change the way it writes WALs, which would increase overhead. Checksum corruptions can happen without any lower-level errors; this is a performance optimization by SQLite.
I've written more about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44673991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44673991
- avinassh 1y ago> Giving developers that option would require SQLite to change the way it writes WALs, which would increase overhead. Yes! But I am happy to accept that overhead with the corruption detection.
- lxgr 1y agoBut why? You'd only get partial corruption detection. As I see it, either you have a lower layer you can trust, and then this would just be extra overhead, or you don't, in which case you'll also need error correction (not just detection!) for the database file itself.