Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys
I found the cause of my issue. I have two columns as foreign key in child, which reference corresponding pair in parent. But, I was setting up the references separately, not as a pair. And it looked like it can not work. It works because the pair of columns in parent is PRIMARY KEY and thus has unique index -- the only requirement for foreign keys to work. Roman From: sqlite-users [sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] on behalf of Keith Medcalf [kmedc...@dessus.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 1:03 AM To: SQLite mailing list Subject: Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys No, it means that you did not specify the whatisness of grandParent, parent, or child; and/or, you have not enabled foreign_keys. https://sqlite.org/lang_createtable.html https://sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_foreign_keys NB: I have compiled the CLI with foreign key enforcement ON be default. The default distributions usually have foreign keys enforcement turned off, because, well, who wants a database that enforces referential integrity? (All kidding aside, the reason that foreign key enforcement is OFF by default is to maintain backward compatibility with older versions of SQLite that "parsed" such constraints but did not allow for enforcement of them). SQLite version 3.26.0 2018-10-23 13:48:19 Enter ".help" for usage hints. Connected to a transient in-memory database. Use ".open FILENAME" to reopen on a persistent database. sqlite> create table grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ); sqlite> create table parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)); sqlite> create table child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); sqlite> insert into parent values (1); Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> insert into child values (1); Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> insert into grandparent values (1); sqlite> insert into parent values (1); sqlite> insert into child values (1); sqlite> delete from parent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from child where id=1; sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from parent where id=1; sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; sqlite> --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-Original Message- >From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users- >boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Roman Fleysher >Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2018 22:30 >To: General Discussion of SQLite Database >Subject: [sqlite] nested foreign keys > >Dear SQLiters, > >I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": > >create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) >create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) >create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) > >SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? > >Thank you, > >Roman >___ >sqlite-users mailing list >sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys
No, it means that you did not specify the whatisness of grandParent, parent, or child; and/or, you have not enabled foreign_keys. https://sqlite.org/lang_createtable.html https://sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_foreign_keys NB: I have compiled the CLI with foreign key enforcement ON be default. The default distributions usually have foreign keys enforcement turned off, because, well, who wants a database that enforces referential integrity? (All kidding aside, the reason that foreign key enforcement is OFF by default is to maintain backward compatibility with older versions of SQLite that "parsed" such constraints but did not allow for enforcement of them). SQLite version 3.26.0 2018-10-23 13:48:19 Enter ".help" for usage hints. Connected to a transient in-memory database. Use ".open FILENAME" to reopen on a persistent database. sqlite> create table grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ); sqlite> create table parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)); sqlite> create table child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); sqlite> insert into parent values (1); Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> insert into child values (1); Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> insert into grandparent values (1); sqlite> insert into parent values (1); sqlite> insert into child values (1); sqlite> delete from parent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from child where id=1; sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; Error: FOREIGN KEY constraint failed sqlite> delete from parent where id=1; sqlite> delete from grandparent where id=1; sqlite> --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-Original Message- >From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users- >boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Roman Fleysher >Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2018 22:30 >To: General Discussion of SQLite Database >Subject: [sqlite] nested foreign keys > >Dear SQLiters, > >I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": > >create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) >create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) >create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) > >SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? > >Thank you, > >Roman >___ >sqlite-users mailing list >sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys
What do your inserts look like? This SQL will function as expected: CREATE TABLE grandparent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY); CREATE TABLE parent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandparent(id)); CREATE TABLE child (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); INSERT INTO grandparent VALUES (1); INSERT INTO parent VALUES (1); INSERT INTO child VALUES (1); You can mix up the insertion order if you defer checking ( https://www.sqlite.org/foreignkeys.html#fk_deferred); if not, you'll have to insert parents before children. - David On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:44 PM Roman Fleysher < roman.fleys...@einstein.yu.edu> wrote: > The statements work. Insertion fails. > > Roman > > > From: sqlite-users [sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] on > behalf of David Yip [dw...@peach-bun.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:37 AM > To: SQLite mailing list > Subject: Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys > > These statements worked for me: > > > CREATE TABLE grandparent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY); > > CREATE TABLE parent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandparent(id)); > > CREATE TABLE child (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); > > > The foreign key constraints work as you'd expect also. > > > What are you doing and what error are you seeing? > > > - David > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:30 PM Roman Fleysher < > roman.fleys...@einstein.yu.edu> wrote: > > > Dear SQLiters, > > > > I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": > > > > create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) > > create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) > > create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) > > > > SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Roman > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys
The statements work. Insertion fails. Roman From: sqlite-users [sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] on behalf of David Yip [dw...@peach-bun.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:37 AM To: SQLite mailing list Subject: Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys These statements worked for me: CREATE TABLE grandparent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY); CREATE TABLE parent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandparent(id)); CREATE TABLE child (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); The foreign key constraints work as you'd expect also. What are you doing and what error are you seeing? - David On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:30 PM Roman Fleysher < roman.fleys...@einstein.yu.edu> wrote: > Dear SQLiters, > > I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": > > create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) > create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) > create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) > > SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? > > Thank you, > > Roman > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] nested foreign keys
Dear SQLIters, I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": create grandParent( id PRIMARY KEY) create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] nested foreign keys
These statements worked for me: CREATE TABLE grandparent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY); CREATE TABLE parent (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandparent(id)); CREATE TABLE child (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)); The foreign key constraints work as you'd expect also. What are you doing and what error are you seeing? - David On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:30 PM Roman Fleysher < roman.fleys...@einstein.yu.edu> wrote: > Dear SQLiters, > > I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": > > create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) > create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) > create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) > > SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? > > Thank you, > > Roman > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
[sqlite] nested foreign keys
Dear SQLiters, I am trying to set up what I would call "nested foreign keys": create grandParent (id PRIMARY KEY ) create parent (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES grandParent(id)) create child (id PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES parent(id)) SQLite complains. Does it mean that grand children are not allowed? Thank you, Roman ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 25 Oct 2018, at 12:16am, Philip Warner wrote: > t leads to the question: have you ever seen one that works better than, say, > "Don't be an arsehole/dick/evil"? In most jurisdictions sexual harassment, > murder etc are already illegal...so repeating them in a CoE/C seems redundant. The question should be answered. It took this list around two weeks to half -- the boring half -- of the Bill and Ted standard of conduct. I am disappointed. Bill and Ted's masterful code of conduct consisted of two interlaced parts: A) Be excellent to each other. B) Party on, dudes ! Part (A) can be "Don't be evil" or "Don't be an asshole." or "Do unto others as you would have them do to you.". I'll take them all as equivalents. But (B) is essential, and it has been left out. Without (B) there is no reason to seek out beauty or fun, or to (rendering unto others …) encourage others to do so. Without (B) you can live a formal, sterile, joyless life and call it worthwhile. I am disappointed. We might as well all be replaced by robots. The second exhortation tells us that that's not enough, and we also have a duty to maximise pleasure. Find the fun. If you can't find fun, make some. And trying to do (B) without violating (A) helps keep life interesting. Simon. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 25/10/2018 2:17 AM, Jens Alfke wrote: Vague blanket statements like “Don’t be evil” or “Be excellent to each other” don’t work (here or anywhere else.) This is a good point. But it leads to the question: have you ever seen one that works better than, say, "Don't be an arsehole/dick/evil"? In most jurisdictions sexual harassment, murder etc are already illegal...so repeating them in a CoE/C seems redundant. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 25/10/2018 9:11 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: If you read the original CoC closely, you will find things that required me to change it. We have: 18. Be a help in times of trouble 19. Console the sorrowing 31. Love your enemies 34. Be not proud 71. Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets lol...hoist and petard etc. Nice change. You broke the ethics again tho...you made me laugh: "Speak no useless words or words that move to laughter". I'm glad it says "follow spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability" since it means I can interpret it as I like, and ignore anything I am unable to agree with. Not sure that's ideal for any ethical code, but it means I can at least ignore all the god-stuff, masochism, starving, alcohol prohibition etc. And I do love a good grudge, so I'll hang on to my best ones. And my addiction to wine. The media "keep death daily before your eyes", so I can ignore that one as well. I don't have a spiritual mentor, so I guess I will just talk to my dogs morewhich leads me to a possibility...replace "God" with "Dog"...that fixes a few more of them. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
See, this is where I miss being able to non-intrusively add a heart emoji to your post. Here it is anyway: ❤ Wout. On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 12:11 AM Richard Hipp wrote: > On 10/24/18, Michael Falconer wrote: > > > > it's all gone...while my devout atheism is generally pleased my > > somewhat annoying 'free will, free speech ' ethic has rust on it! > Richard, > > it's your joint and it's such a good place, friendly and mostly > respectful. > > My atheism was NOT offended in any way by all that God speak and I do > > support the notion that you are perfectly entitled to have a CoC and for > it > > to take whatever form you feel appropriate. But I'm an honest guy and > will > > unsub if my un-godliness is just totally unacceptable, but I'll still be > > using SQLite! > > > > My original CoC is still there. It just changed its filename. > https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html > > If you read the original CoC closely, you will find things that > required me to change it. We have: > > 18. Be a help in times of trouble > 19. Console the sorrowing > 31. Love your enemies > 34. Be not proud > 71. Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets > > Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, some people were > troubled with the Benedictine Rule being called a "Code of Conduct". > It turns out that the term "Code of Conduct" has special significance > to some communities, and if you misuse the term, it causes emotional > distress. If I can relieve that sorrow without compromising my own > values, isn't it right to do so? It took me several days and > countless hours reading enraged tweets to figure this out, but in the > end, the solution was as simple as renaming the offensive "Code of > Conduct" to "Code of Ethics", thus avoiding the > name-of-special-significance, then drop in a pre-packaged CoC in place > of the one that became the CoE, and all is well. Took less than 5 > minutes once I figured out what to do. Who know it was that easy? > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 10/24/18, Michael Falconer wrote: > > it's all gone...while my devout atheism is generally pleased my > somewhat annoying 'free will, free speech ' ethic has rust on it! Richard, > it's your joint and it's such a good place, friendly and mostly respectful. > My atheism was NOT offended in any way by all that God speak and I do > support the notion that you are perfectly entitled to have a CoC and for it > to take whatever form you feel appropriate. But I'm an honest guy and will > unsub if my un-godliness is just totally unacceptable, but I'll still be > using SQLite! > My original CoC is still there. It just changed its filename. https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html If you read the original CoC closely, you will find things that required me to change it. We have: 18. Be a help in times of trouble 19. Console the sorrowing 31. Love your enemies 34. Be not proud 71. Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, some people were troubled with the Benedictine Rule being called a "Code of Conduct". It turns out that the term "Code of Conduct" has special significance to some communities, and if you misuse the term, it causes emotional distress. If I can relieve that sorrow without compromising my own values, isn't it right to do so? It took me several days and countless hours reading enraged tweets to figure this out, but in the end, the solution was as simple as renaming the offensive "Code of Conduct" to "Code of Ethics", thus avoiding the name-of-special-significance, then drop in a pre-packaged CoC in place of the one that became the CoE, and all is well. Took less than 5 minutes once I figured out what to do. Who know it was that easy? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
Oh dear, it's all gone...while my devout atheism is generally pleased my somewhat annoying 'free will, free speech ' ethic has rust on it! Richard, it's your joint and it's such a good place, friendly and mostly respectful. My atheism was NOT offended in any way by all that God speak and I do support the notion that you are perfectly entitled to have a CoC and for it to take whatever form you feel appropriate. But I'm an honest guy and will unsub if my un-godliness is just totally unacceptable, but I'll still be using SQLite! On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 06:10, Mantas Gridinas wrote: > Or a capture card. > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 21:28 Brian Chrzanowski wrote: > > > Probably a virtual machine. > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 2:27 PM R Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2018/10/24 8:19 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > > > > ..// without users consent. ... unlike... > > > > > > > > > > https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Windows10-BSOD-640x353.jpg > > > > > > How did you take a screenshot while Windows was hanging/recovering? > > > > > > I call foul! > > > > > > (Or is that a new Windows 10 feature?) > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > sqlite-users mailing list > > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Regards, Michael.j.Falconer. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
The one I usually see as being referred to as being "political" is the
Contributor Covenant -
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct
From reading it, while it does have some specifics, it has all the
exact same problems you're highlighting "Don't be evil" has. Why?
Because it includes huge loopholes which are extremely subjective and
based on whoever is interpreting the rules:
"Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
professional setting"
"Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of
acceptable behavior[sic]"
And more potential retroactive changing of the rules: "Representation of
a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers."
There's also this gem: "The use of sexualized language or imagery and
unwelcome sexual attention or advances" - so by implication sexual
attention/advances are fine as long as they're welcome?
While the SQLite CoC definitely fails at the religious inclusiveness
component, as far as I can see it's better in most other ways. It's
certainly more specific, there are no giant loopholes, it doesn't stop
at "unwanted" advances ("chastity" is one of the rules), and with the
ethos heading at the top, it's clear that it's only really interested in
keeping things positive rather than going on witchhunts. I still prefer
"be excellent", but SQLite could do worse, and I say all that as
egalitarian atheist.
On 2018-10-24 16:17, Jens Alfke wrote:
On Oct 22, 2018, at 10:04 PM, Paul wrote:
If my opinion has any value, even though being atheist, I prefer this CoC 100
times over
the CoC that is being currently pushed onto the many open-source communities,
that was
created by some purple-headed feminist with political motives.
As a purple-headed feminist (yes, literally; got it dyed last week, though the
color is subtle) I am rolling my eyes at this.
I haven’t see any CoC with political motives being “pushed” to open-source
communities. The ones I’ve seen basically boil down to Be Excellent Unto One
Another, similarly to SQLite’s. The difference is that they go into
_specifics_. And why do they do that? Because of many incidents of
harassment/discrimination against people of specific minority [in the geek
community] groups.
Vague blanket statements like “Don’t be evil” or “Be excellent to each other”
don’t work (here or anywhere else.) *Everyone* believes they’re good,
*everyone* believes they’re doing good, everyone believes that when they get
snarky or take action against someone, that it’s because the *other person*
deserved it, or maybe that it was just in fun and the other person shouldn’t be
so sensitive. Even the [insert name of horrible group that committed
atrocities] felt that way.
Since DRH got this CoC from a Christian monastic order, allow me to give an
example: another order, the Dominicans, instigated and led some rather horrific
acts of mass torture, murder and ethnic cleansing over the centuries (e.g. the
Spanish Inquisition.) I’m sure that Savonarola felt himself to be a good person
who was doing the right thing. (Of course, the same goes for horrifically evil
people who were devout followers of other religions, and of course atheists.
Only Disney villains actually believe they’re evil.)
Being specific is important. If you think it’s some kind of crazy political
extremism to prohibit harassment based on race, religion, gender or sexual
orientation, I can’t help you there, but just try to keep in mind that the
majority of people do think so and have asked that you not do it. At least they
have on other sites; I can’t tell about this one, because the original author
of the CoC certainly felt it was OK, and I don’t know what DRH’s motives were
for reproducing his words verbatim.
—Jens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
Or a capture card. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 21:28 Brian Chrzanowski Probably a virtual machine. > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 2:27 PM R Smith wrote: > > > > > On 2018/10/24 8:19 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > > > ..// without users consent. ... unlike... > > > > > > https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Windows10-BSOD-640x353.jpg > > > > How did you take a screenshot while Windows was hanging/recovering? > > > > I call foul! > > > > (Or is that a new Windows 10 feature?) > > > > > > ___ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
Probably a virtual machine. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 2:27 PM R Smith wrote: > > On 2018/10/24 8:19 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > > ..// without users consent. ... unlike... > > > https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Windows10-BSOD-640x353.jpg > > How did you take a screenshot while Windows was hanging/recovering? > > I call foul! > > (Or is that a new Windows 10 feature?) > > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 2018/10/24 8:19 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: ..// without users consent. ... unlike... https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Windows10-BSOD-640x353.jpg How did you take a screenshot while Windows was hanging/recovering? I call foul! (Or is that a new Windows 10 feature?) ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
I like this. If I were to use this (And I don't expect I'll ever have to since I typically write just for me) the only addition I'd make to this is about the reporting. From a users perspective, if the utility has something to report "home" with (lets say crash reports), it'd have to be ABUNDANTLY clear and written on the tin that the software has the capability to do so, and CLEARLY give the option to view exactly what is being transmitted, and never in an automated way without users consent. ... unlike... https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Windows10-BSOD-640x353.jpg On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:28 PM dmp wrote: > Code Of Conduct, misplaced disposition on the individuals of > an organization rather than the results of their work on > intent. > > I have had a simple statement with my open source software > downloads for years. > > "Dandy Made Productions would like to assure individuals that > any applications downloaded from this site are free from any > malicious code as so created. Great pride is taken in trying > to create ethical software that does not knowingly modify, or > change files or a system's configuration beyond the user's > request. In addition no software downloaded from this site > performs any type of monitoring or reporting on the user's > behavior in use of said application. Every reasonable attempt > is made to maintain the integrity of the downloaded software > packages at this site." > > Dana M. Proctor > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
Code Of Conduct, misplaced disposition on the individuals of an organization rather than the results of their work on intent. I have had a simple statement with my open source software downloads for years. "Dandy Made Productions would like to assure individuals that any applications downloaded from this site are free from any malicious code as so created. Great pride is taken in trying to create ethical software that does not knowingly modify, or change files or a system's configuration beyond the user's request. In addition no software downloaded from this site performs any type of monitoring or reporting on the user's behavior in use of said application. Every reasonable attempt is made to maintain the integrity of the downloaded software packages at this site." Dana M. Proctor ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
Richard, thank you for your further explanation of your team's Code of Conduct. After a bit of research on the Internet, everything makes sense. Well done. regs, Kev ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 10:04 PM, Paul wrote: > > If my opinion has any value, even though being atheist, I prefer this CoC 100 > times over > the CoC that is being currently pushed onto the many open-source communities, > that was > created by some purple-headed feminist with political motives. As a purple-headed feminist (yes, literally; got it dyed last week, though the color is subtle) I am rolling my eyes at this. I haven’t see any CoC with political motives being “pushed” to open-source communities. The ones I’ve seen basically boil down to Be Excellent Unto One Another, similarly to SQLite’s. The difference is that they go into _specifics_. And why do they do that? Because of many incidents of harassment/discrimination against people of specific minority [in the geek community] groups. Vague blanket statements like “Don’t be evil” or “Be excellent to each other” don’t work (here or anywhere else.) *Everyone* believes they’re good, *everyone* believes they’re doing good, everyone believes that when they get snarky or take action against someone, that it’s because the *other person* deserved it, or maybe that it was just in fun and the other person shouldn’t be so sensitive. Even the [insert name of horrible group that committed atrocities] felt that way. Since DRH got this CoC from a Christian monastic order, allow me to give an example: another order, the Dominicans, instigated and led some rather horrific acts of mass torture, murder and ethnic cleansing over the centuries (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition.) I’m sure that Savonarola felt himself to be a good person who was doing the right thing. (Of course, the same goes for horrifically evil people who were devout followers of other religions, and of course atheists. Only Disney villains actually believe they’re evil.) Being specific is important. If you think it’s some kind of crazy political extremism to prohibit harassment based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, I can’t help you there, but just try to keep in mind that the majority of people do think so and have asked that you not do it. At least they have on other sites; I can’t tell about this one, because the original author of the CoC certainly felt it was OK, and I don’t know what DRH’s motives were for reproducing his words verbatim. —Jens ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:55 PM Jan Danielsson wrote: > > Lets not pretend the rules are from English origin please. --DD > >I don't think that was what Wout meant. Read "Ye Olde English" as > "Aesthetically 'old'", not "use the original". Point was merely to give > some visual clues to the reader that "the original is very old", since > it's clear a lot of people aren't reading the first part of the > document. And again, English is a good choice to reach as many as > possible. > Indeed. Suppose drh would have referred to some ancient Buddhist or Hindu document, then I think there wouldn't be as much complaining. In early hacker culture, there is much referencing to koans The Christian outlook is however very familiar to most readers here, and has connotations of bible-thumpers and meddling. If I wanted to buy an ice-cream and some angry bible-belter would only sell it if I promise to repent and whatnot, I would certainly forgo the purchase. I think this is what some people are imagining. Adding more easy-to-grasp context to the CoC would help IMHO. Wout. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On 2018-10-24 13:42, Dominique Devienne wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:10 PM Wout Mertens wrote: >> [...] write the rules in Ye Olde English. [..] > > He was "Italian", and more likely to write in Latin, not English, old or > new. > The SQLite doc is English only because that's DRH native tong (I assume). Minor point, but I don't think the English translation is used merely because of drh's native tongue; it also happens to be a good choice to use English on the Internet so as many people as possible can read it. > Lets not pretend the rules are from English origin please. --DD I don't think that was what Wout meant. Read "Ye Olde English" as "Aesthetically 'old'", not "use the original". Point was merely to give some visual clues to the reader that "the original is very old", since it's clear a lot of people aren't reading the first part of the document. And again, English is a good choice to reach as many as possible. -- Kind Regards, Jan ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:10 PM Wout Mertens wrote: > [...] write the rules in Ye Olde English. [..] > He was "Italian", and more likely to write in Latin, not English, old or new. The SQLite doc is English only because that's DRH native tong (I assume). Lets not pretend the rules are from English origin please. --DD ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
> On the other hand, I am open to suggestions on how to express > those values in a way that modern twitter-ites can better understand Probably via selfie, with a duckface, together with your evening meal in the background. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:30 PM Richard Hipp wrote: > On 10/22/18, Chris Brody wrote: > >> Looks like that happened this morning. > >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 > > > > I saw it coming, tried to warn you guys in private. > > There is indeed a reactionary hate mob forming on twitter. But most > of the thoughtful commentators have been supportive, even if they > disagree with the particulars of our CoC, They total get that we are > not being exclusive, but rather setting a standard of behavior for > participation in the SQLite community. > > I have tried to make that point clear in the preface to the CoC, that > we have no intention of enforcing any particular religious system on > anybody, and that everyone is welcomed to participate in the community > regardless of ones religious proclivities. The only requirement is > that while participating in the SQLite community, your behavior not be > in direct conflict with time-tested and centuries-old Christian > ethics. Nobody has to adhere to a particular creed. Merely > demonstrate professional behavior and all is well. > > Many detractors appear to have not read the preface, or if they read > it, they did not understand it. This might be because I have not > explained it well. The preface has been revised, months ago, to > address prior criticism from the twitter crowd. I think the current > preface is definitely an improvement over what was up at first. But, > there might be ways of improving it further. Thoughtful suggestions > are welcomed. > > So the question then arises: If strict adherence to the Rule of St. > Benedict is not required, why even have a CoC? > > Several reasons: First, "professional behavior" is ill-defined. What > is professional to some might be unprofessional to others. The Rule > attempts to clarify what "professional behavior" means. When I was > first trying to figure out what CoC to use (under pressure from > clients) I also considered secular sources, such as Benjamin > Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up > going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as > it provide more examples. > > Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of > the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite > approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have > been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC > would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it > better to be open and honest about who we are? > > Thirdly, having a written CoC is increasingly a business requirement. > (I published the currrent CoC after two separate business requested > copies of our company CoC. They did not say this was a precondition > for doing business with them, but there was that implication.) There > has been an implicit code of conduct for SQLite from the beginning, > and almost everybody has gotten along with it just fine. Once or > twice I have had to privately reprove offenders, but those are rare > exceptions. Publishing the current CoC back in February is merely > making explicit what has been implicit from the beginning. Nothing > has really changed. I did not draw attention to the CoC back in > February because all I really needed then was a hyperlink to send to > those who were specifically curious. > > So then, why not use a more modern CoC? I looked at that too, but > found the so-called "modern" CoCs to be vapid. They are trendy > feel-good statements that do not really get to the heart of the matter > in the way the the ancient Rule does. By way of analogy, I view > modern CoCs as being like pop music - selling millions of copies today > and completely forgotten next year. I prefer something more enduring, > like Mozart. > > One final reason for publishing the current CoC is as a preemptive > move, to prevent some future customer from imposing on us one of those > modern CoCs that I so dislike. > > In summary: The values expressed by the current CoC have been > unchanged for decades and will not be changing as we move forward. If > some people are uncomfortable with those values, then I am very sorry > for them, but that does not change the fact. On the other hand, I am > open to suggestions on how to express those values in a way that > modern twitter-ites can better understand, so do not hesitate to speak > up if you have a plan. > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
I think a lot of confusion could have been avoided by putting the text of the CoC in a separate box, and for extra effect use a parchment paper background, something like the Papyrus font and write the rules in Ye Olde English. Right now it looks as if the rules were written specifically for sqlite and only by reading the preface closely is it clear what's what. Wout. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM Jonathan Moules < jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote: > I think the big problem with this CoC is that it triggers Poe's Law - > it's impossible to tell if it's serious or a joke without further > context. I know I spent a good 10 minutes trying to decide either way > when I first saw this thread a few days ago; now I know from the below > post that it's serious. > > The consequence of this is that a good chunk of the criticism out there > is because people think it's a joke and treat it accordingly. Some more > clarification in the opening paragraph on the reasoning behind it and > it's non-jokey nature - as below - would probably ameliorate this > component of the CoC's contentiousness. > > > On 2018-10-22 16:29, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 10/22/18, Chris Brody wrote: > >>> Looks like that happened this morning. > >>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 > >> I saw it coming, tried to warn you guys in private. > > There is indeed a reactionary hate mob forming on twitter. But most > > of the thoughtful commentators have been supportive, even if they > > disagree with the particulars of our CoC, They total get that we are > > not being exclusive, but rather setting a standard of behavior for > > participation in the SQLite community. > > > > I have tried to make that point clear in the preface to the CoC, that > > we have no intention of enforcing any particular religious system on > > anybody, and that everyone is welcomed to participate in the community > > regardless of ones religious proclivities. The only requirement is > > that while participating in the SQLite community, your behavior not be > > in direct conflict with time-tested and centuries-old Christian > > ethics. Nobody has to adhere to a particular creed. Merely > > demonstrate professional behavior and all is well. > > > > Many detractors appear to have not read the preface, or if they read > > it, they did not understand it. This might be because I have not > > explained it well. The preface has been revised, months ago, to > > address prior criticism from the twitter crowd. I think the current > > preface is definitely an improvement over what was up at first. But, > > there might be ways of improving it further. Thoughtful suggestions > > are welcomed. > > > > So the question then arises: If strict adherence to the Rule of St. > > Benedict is not required, why even have a CoC? > > > > Several reasons: First, "professional behavior" is ill-defined. What > > is professional to some might be unprofessional to others. The Rule > > attempts to clarify what "professional behavior" means. When I was > > first trying to figure out what CoC to use (under pressure from > > clients) I also considered secular sources, such as Benjamin > > Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up > > going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as > > it provide more examples. > > > > Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of > > the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite > > approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have > > been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC > > would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it > > better to be open and honest about who we are? > > > > Thirdly, having a written CoC is increasingly a business requirement. > > (I published the currrent CoC after two separate business requested > > copies of our company CoC. They did not say this was a precondition > > for doing business with them, but there was that implication.) There > > has been an implicit code of conduct for SQLite from the beginning, > > and almost everybody has gotten along with it just fine. Once or > > twice I have had to privately reprove offenders, but those are rare > > exceptions. Publishing the current CoC back in February is merely > > making explicit what has been implicit from the beginning. Nothing > > has really changed. I did not draw attention to the CoC back in > > February because all I really needed then was a hyperlink to send to > > those who were specifically curious. > > > > So then, why not use a more modern CoC? I looked at that too, but > > found the so-called "modern" CoCs to be vapid. They are trendy > > feel-good statements that do not really get to the heart of the matter > > in the way the the ancient Rule does. By way of analogy, I view > > modern CoCs as being like pop music - selling millions of copies today > > and completely forgotten
Re: [sqlite] Regarding CoC
I think the big problem with this CoC is that it triggers Poe's Law - it's impossible to tell if it's serious or a joke without further context. I know I spent a good 10 minutes trying to decide either way when I first saw this thread a few days ago; now I know from the below post that it's serious. The consequence of this is that a good chunk of the criticism out there is because people think it's a joke and treat it accordingly. Some more clarification in the opening paragraph on the reasoning behind it and it's non-jokey nature - as below - would probably ameliorate this component of the CoC's contentiousness. On 2018-10-22 16:29, Richard Hipp wrote: On 10/22/18, Chris Brody wrote: Looks like that happened this morning. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 I saw it coming, tried to warn you guys in private. There is indeed a reactionary hate mob forming on twitter. But most of the thoughtful commentators have been supportive, even if they disagree with the particulars of our CoC, They total get that we are not being exclusive, but rather setting a standard of behavior for participation in the SQLite community. I have tried to make that point clear in the preface to the CoC, that we have no intention of enforcing any particular religious system on anybody, and that everyone is welcomed to participate in the community regardless of ones religious proclivities. The only requirement is that while participating in the SQLite community, your behavior not be in direct conflict with time-tested and centuries-old Christian ethics. Nobody has to adhere to a particular creed. Merely demonstrate professional behavior and all is well. Many detractors appear to have not read the preface, or if they read it, they did not understand it. This might be because I have not explained it well. The preface has been revised, months ago, to address prior criticism from the twitter crowd. I think the current preface is definitely an improvement over what was up at first. But, there might be ways of improving it further. Thoughtful suggestions are welcomed. So the question then arises: If strict adherence to the Rule of St. Benedict is not required, why even have a CoC? Several reasons: First, "professional behavior" is ill-defined. What is professional to some might be unprofessional to others. The Rule attempts to clarify what "professional behavior" means. When I was first trying to figure out what CoC to use (under pressure from clients) I also considered secular sources, such as Benjamin Franklin's 13 virtues (http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/) but ended up going with the Instruments of Good Works from St. Benedict's Rule as it provide more examples. Secondly, I view a CoC not so much as a legal code as a statement of the values of the core developers. All current committers to SQLite approved the CoC before I published it. A single dissent would have been sufficient for me to change course. Taking down the current CoC would not change our values, it would merely obscure them. Isn't it better to be open and honest about who we are? Thirdly, having a written CoC is increasingly a business requirement. (I published the currrent CoC after two separate business requested copies of our company CoC. They did not say this was a precondition for doing business with them, but there was that implication.) There has been an implicit code of conduct for SQLite from the beginning, and almost everybody has gotten along with it just fine. Once or twice I have had to privately reprove offenders, but those are rare exceptions. Publishing the current CoC back in February is merely making explicit what has been implicit from the beginning. Nothing has really changed. I did not draw attention to the CoC back in February because all I really needed then was a hyperlink to send to those who were specifically curious. So then, why not use a more modern CoC? I looked at that too, but found the so-called "modern" CoCs to be vapid. They are trendy feel-good statements that do not really get to the heart of the matter in the way the the ancient Rule does. By way of analogy, I view modern CoCs as being like pop music - selling millions of copies today and completely forgotten next year. I prefer something more enduring, like Mozart. One final reason for publishing the current CoC is as a preemptive move, to prevent some future customer from imposing on us one of those modern CoCs that I so dislike. In summary: The values expressed by the current CoC have been unchanged for decades and will not be changing as we move forward. If some people are uncomfortable with those values, then I am very sorry for them, but that does not change the fact. On the other hand, I am open to suggestions on how to express those values in a way that modern twitter-ites can better understand, so do not hesitate to speak up if you have a plan. ___ sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] codeblocks thing happens when using codeblocks to compile sqlite with geopoly
On 10/24/18, Graham Hardman wrote: > > With my files built from the command prompt I ran the pragma > compile_options and see that geopoly is listed as expected. Are you sure? Can you double-check? Because I just looked at the source code and it appears I mistakenly omitted ENABLE_GEOPOLY from the "PRAGMA compile_options" command. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] [EXTERNAL] Index help...
There is no datetime type in SQLite. You are storing ISO Text representations so you should declare the column as TEXT. An Index is only useable for a prefix of equality contstraints followed by ONE inequality constraint. From your index (model_id, confidence, ts) and your query constraints ( '=', '>', 'BETWEEN') this means that model_id is useable (equality constraint) and confidence (inequality constraint>), which allows the Engine to locate the first record with model_id == 1 and confidence > 0.8 and partial scan the table until the model_id changes. Note that the ts field is not guaranteed to be ascending within this interval (a record with higher confidence but smaller timestamp may follow any given record in the scann portionof the table. Thus the ts constraint needs to be handled without the index. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im Auftrag von Hamesh Shah Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 00:45 An: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org Betreff: [EXTERNAL] [sqlite] Index help... I need a little help with some strange indexing behaviour. I have a table called detected. i create a index for: id integer, confidence ASC, timestamp ASC Then when I query with a simple select from where with integer, then confidence, then timestamp in order, for some reason the timestamp index isn't used ? SEARCH TABLE detected USING COVERING INDEX detected_model_id_confidence_ts (model_id=? AND confidence>?) I read the website, I tried it many times around and still no joy. I can't see why it's not using the timestamp that is already ordered for my sql ts > and ts < statement. Python versions: sqlite3.version 2.6.0 / python api version. *sqlite3.sqlite_version 3.24.0* table standalone: CREATE TABLE detected ( id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, model_id integer NOT NULL, state_id integer NOT NULL, dataset_id integer NOT NULL, class_id integer NOT NULL, confidence REAL NOT NULL, ts DATETIME NOT NULL, x0 INTEGER NOT NULL, y0 INTEGER NOT NULL, x1 INTEGER NOT NULL, y1 INTEGER NOT NULL, file_id INTEGER NOT NULL ) index creation: CREATE INDEX `detected_model_id_confidence_ts` ON `detected` ( `model_id`, `confidence` ASC, `ts` ASC ); I can't see the timestamp being used: explain query plan select distinct ts from detected where model_id = 1 and confidence > 0.8 and ts > '2018-10-10 01:25:25' and ts < '2018-10-23 08:10:17' ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users ___ Gunter Hick | Software Engineer | Scientific Games International GmbH | Klitschgasse 2-4, A-1130 Vienna | FN 157284 a, HG Wien, DVR: 0430013 | (O) +43 1 80100 - 0 May be privileged. May be confidential. Please delete if not the addressee. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
