mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] ALTER TABLE and INTEGER PRIMARY KEY.
>
> On 8/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Scott Hess" <
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] ALTER TABLE and INTEGER PRIMARY KEY.
On 8/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Scott Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
"Scott Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that you can set
> >
> >PRAGMA writable_schema=ON;
> >
> > Then do a manual UPDATE of the sqlite_master table to insert
> > an "id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY" into the SQL for the table definition.
> > I tried it and it seems to work. But it
On 8/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Scott Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was getting ready to checkin the rowid-versus-fts2 fix, and wanted
> > to add one last bit, to upgrade older tables.
> >
> > Unfortunately, code of the form:
> >
> >ALTER TABLE x_segments AD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Scott Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was getting ready to checkin the rowid-versus-fts2 fix, and wanted
> > to add one last bit, to upgrade older tables.
> >
> > Unfortunately, code of the form:
> >
> >ALTER TABLE x_segments ADD id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY;
--- Scott Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may mean that I'll need to branch fts2 to fts3 and deprecate
> fts1/2 as being not safe for use. If the code is going to have to
> create new tables and populate them, then there's not a lot of gain
> versus just having the developer do that.
Is it
"Scott Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was getting ready to checkin the rowid-versus-fts2 fix, and wanted
> to add one last bit, to upgrade older tables.
>
> Unfortunately, code of the form:
>
>ALTER TABLE x_segments ADD id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY;
>
> is documented as not supported.
> http
7 matches
Mail list logo