Hacker News Reader

Comment by avinassh | Hacker News Reader

of all places, I did not expect to get personal attacks on HN :)

> yet makes fundamental mistakes in understanding what the WAL does and how it's possible not to "partly" apply a WAL.

Please provide citation on where I said that. You can't partly apply WAL always, but there are very valid cases where you can do that to recover. Recovery doesn't have to automatic. It can be done by SQLite, or some recovery tool or with manual intervention.

> - Said person maligns SQLite as being impossible to contribute; whereas the actual project only mentions that they may rewrite the proposed patch to avoid copyright implications.

Please provide citation on where I said that. Someone asked me to send a patch to SQLite, I linked them to the SQLite's page.

View on HN

> You can't partly apply WAL always, but there are very valid cases where you can do that to recover.

Without mentioning the exact set of cases where recovery is possible and it isn't, going "PSA: SQLite is unreliable!!1one" is highly irresponsible. I think there's quite a bit of criticism going around though, you could add them to your blog article :)

Please also consider the fact that SQLite being a transactional database, it is usually not possible to expose a WAL level error to the user. The correct way to address it is to probably come up with a list of cases where it is possible, and then send in a patch, or at least a proposal, of how to address it.

> Please provide citation on where I said that [SQLite is impossible to contribute].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44672563

I don't know if you have some personal vendetta against me, because you are citing things I did not say. I did not say SQLite is unreliable. I said SQLite stops at checksum errors found in WAL and stops recovery, which may lead to data loss. Which part of this is incorrect?

On SQLite contribution, I did not say it's "impossible." I said it's not open to contribution. This is the exact phrase from the linked page.

To me it isn't incorrect, but misleading. A checksum error means corruption, corruption in the main database just randomly can cause any damage. Why specially consider checksum error in the WAL?

> of all places, I did not expect to get personal attacks on HN

You must be new to the site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com