--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > It may be more difficult to implement this in a backwards-compatible
> > > way such that older versions of SQLite can rollback a journal created
> > > by a newer version if it encounters one.
> >
> > I wonder if there are many projects that have different versions of
> > SQLite updating and reading the same database file at the same time.
> > This can't be very common.
> >
>
> As we learned from the release of 3.3.0, this is more common
> that you might expect. There are surprisingly many projects
> that expect to be able to access SQLite databases from both
> older and newer versions of the library.
It's not quite the same thing - the 3.x file format change was not
backwards compatible _at all_ with previous versions of SQLite.
Having a large degree of backwards compatibilty makes all the difference.
Changing the journal file format to accommodate a hypothetical new
feature would still produce a backwards compatible database _except_
in the rare case where a transaction in a new version of SQLite is
abruptly aborted or if the power fails. If the transactions are finished
you would still have backwards compatibility with previous versions.
But I still think that simultaneous read/write access to the same database
file with different version of SQLite is not very common.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
