-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/02/12 14:38, Simon Slavin wrote: > File systems (FAT, NTFS, HTFS) already have block checksums.
Huh? FAT has a checksum on the super block but not on datablocks. NTFS does not have block checksums. That is why they are introducing ReFS. What evidence do you have for your claims - I couldn't find any? Some file formats do have checksums (eg zip and exe) but that isn't relevant. There are some checksums but not particularly strong between drive platters, firmware, drive controllers, and the host. Quite simply if existing systems had working checksums then the only times people would get SQLITE_CORRUPT would be SQLite bugs. > Problem is, what would you do if a checksum was wrong ? Signal it in a > newly-invented result code ? Return SQLITE_CORRUPT - a code that has existed forever. > All apps would have to have some logic to cope with the situation. You mean like they already have to do? In fact something that is even mentioned in the FAQ: http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q21 > I don't think it's worth doing this in a thin/light/fast system like > SQLite. Then don't use it. Just because you use systems with perfect data integrity doesn't mean the rest of us do. > And the number of bugs that cause corruption that would be spotted this > way seems to be low. http://search.gmane.org/search.php?group=gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general&query=SQLITE_CORRUPT Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk8wYsQACgkQmOOfHg372QRLtgCgxdtewXE/45VSF0pX80wGApm/ s5kAmwawvPSLPAjtRpCv5vUrS3/DUmJX =xcIk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
