Re: [sqlite] page checksums (was Re: Bad db feature request)

On Jun 29, 2016 10:14 PM, "Roger Binns" wrote: > > On 29/06/16 19:13, Scott Robison wrote: > > Given the nature of VFS, it is trivial* for anyone to create a module to > > provide this very functionality. So you can write it yourself! > > > > *Not really trivial, but

Re: [sqlite] page checksums (was Re: Bad db feature request)

On 29/06/16 19:13, Scott Robison wrote: > Given the nature of VFS, it is trivial* for anyone to create a module to > provide this very functionality. So you can write it yourself! > > *Not really trivial, but probably not horribly difficult either. VFS is one way you can't reasonably do it. The

Re: [sqlite] page checksums (was Re: Bad db feature request)

On Jun 29, 2016 5:08 PM, "Darren Duncan" wrote: > I notice that the ticket rejection didn't include any rationale or explanation, or I didn't find any when I looked. What was the rationale for rejecting that ticket? > > I believe that SQLite having page checksums would

[sqlite] page checksums (was Re: Bad db feature request)

On 2016-06-29 8:12 AM, Roger Binns wrote: On 29/06/16 07:51, Dominique Devienne wrote: I wish for the day SQLite has page checksums to detect any such random corruption. Agreed. The SQLite team rejected doing so: http://www.sqlite.org/src/tktview/72b01a982a84f64d4284 Yes, I know, it's

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul Sanderson < sandersonforens...@gmail.com> wrote: > As mentioned above there is (or can be) reserved space at the end of > each page (documented in the DB header) that can be used for checksums > - you just need to write your own extension :) > >

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

As mentioned above there is (or can be) reserved space at the end of each page (documented in the DB header) that can be used for checksums - you just need to write your own extension :) https://www.sqlite.org/fileformat2.html Paul www.sandersonforensics.com skype: r3scue193 twitter:

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Simon Slavin wrote: > On 29 Jun 2016, at 5:45pm, Drago, William @ CSG - NARDA-MITEQ > wrote: >> Aren't there things like that already built in to the hard disk controllers >> (CRC, Reed Solomon, etc.)? > > Yes.

Re: [sqlite] update or replace ...

On 29 Jun 2016, at 5:56pm, Olivier Mascia wrote: > What's the expected behavior of statement "update or replace ..."? > (http://sqlite.org/lang_update.html) > > create table T(K integer primary key, V text); > update or replace T set V='data' where K=1; > > Clearly it does

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On 2016/06/29 4:28 PM, Simon Slavin wrote: On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:17am, R Smith wrote: I know I can write nonsense over the file, but I was hoping to be able to cause specific common corruptions, like Invalid-Schema, Missing Index entries, Missing pages etc. with this

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On 29 Jun 2016, at 5:45pm, Drago, William @ CSG - NARDA-MITEQ wrote: > Aren't there things like that already built in to the hard disk controllers > (CRC, Reed Solomon, etc.)? Yes. But they operate at the level they understand. For instance ... A change is made

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:17 AM, R Smith wrote: > In response to a recent forum post and many other posts, where SQLite > corrupt files or Index integrity was the problem at hand, I was wondering if > we could ask for an API function that would corrupt a DB for us. I have

Re: [sqlite] update or replace ...

On 2016/06/29 6:56 PM, Olivier Mascia wrote: Dear all, What's the expected behavior of statement "update or replace ..."? (http://sqlite.org/lang_update.html) create table T(K integer primary key, V text); update or replace T set V='data' where K=1; Clearly it does nothing. Does this fit

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On 29/06/16 09:45, Drago, William @ CSG - NARDA-MITEQ wrote: > Aren't there things like that [checksums] already built in to the hard disk > controllers (CRC, Reed Solomon, etc.)? They are at a different level and can only detect issues in what they see. For example SQLite can create a page of

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 2016/06/29 4:53 PM, Joe Pasquariello wrote: On 6/29/2016 6:13 AM, R Smith wrote: Very happy this is sorted for you. Note that Synchronous=OFF should only ever be used on a read-only DB (or at least one where writing only happens when you the user/DB Admin actively makes changes via

[sqlite] update or replace ...

Dear all, What's the expected behavior of statement "update or replace ..."? (http://sqlite.org/lang_update.html) create table T(K integer primary key, V text); update or replace T set V='data' where K=1; Clearly it does nothing. Does this fit the intended behavior? Would that mean 'or

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

> boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Devienne > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:52 AM > To: SQLite mailing list > Subject: Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Simon Slavin > wrote: > > I wish for the day SQLite has

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 29 Jun 2016, at 3:53pm, Joe Pasquariello wrote: > Okay, thanks. I thought it was generally preferable to use "lower" levels of > synchronous. No. Other way around. Two principles to guide you through the use of PRAGMAs: A) The default settings are meant to be safe,

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On 29/06/16 07:51, Dominique Devienne wrote: > I wish for the day SQLite has page checksums to detect any such random > corruption. Agreed. The SQLite team rejected doing so: http://www.sqlite.org/src/tktview/72b01a982a84f64d4284 > Yes, I know, it's a format change, and will likely slow

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 6/29/2016 6:13 AM, R Smith wrote: Very happy this is sorted for you. Note that Synchronous=OFF should only ever be used on a read-only DB (or at least one where writing only happens when you the user/DB Admin actively makes changes via queries. For anything that should run autonomously,

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Simon Slavin wrote: > I prefer your idea of opening the file and randomly overwriting a few > bytes. Of course some of them will just be values in unindexed fields, so > there would be no damage SQLite could notice. I wish for the day

Re: [sqlite] Bad db feature request

On 29 Jun 2016, at 10:17am, R Smith wrote: > I know I can write nonsense over the file, but I was hoping to be able to > cause specific common corruptions, like Invalid-Schema, Missing Index > entries, Missing pages etc. with this command. It need not be fancy, just >

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 2016/06/29 2:48 PM, Joe Pasquariello wrote: starting from the original, corrupted DB... integrity_check row 18029 missing from index sqlite_autoindex_EventLog_1 row 18030 missing from index sqlite_autoindex_EventLog_1 row 18031 missing from index sqlite_autoindex_EventLog_1 row 18032

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 6/29/2016 1:04 AM, R Smith wrote: These are the duplicate records. This index is associated with a UNIQUE constraint on the original table. Is there a way to clean it up? That means your DB is corrupted by some method. It's not bad yet, just missing Index entries. Make a copy of the

Re: [sqlite] How to use "cursors" in c#

Subject to the same caveats as normal. It only returns the ROWID of the last insert on the connection. If you are ABOSLUTELY SURE without a dounbt that the last insert on the connection is the one that you want the rowid for, then it will work as you intend. However if you miscompute which

[sqlite] Bad db feature request

Hi SQLite devs, In response to a recent forum post and many other posts, where SQLite corrupt files or Index integrity was the problem at hand, I was wondering if we could ask for an API function that would corrupt a DB for us. I would like to use this to test all our systems' ability to

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 29 Jun 2016, at 5:36am, Joe Pasquariello wrote: > These are the duplicate records. This index is associated with a UNIQUE > constraint on the original table. Is there a way to clean it up? Unfortunately it's an automatic index and I hesitate to manipulate it manually in

Re: [sqlite] x64 binary

Not really an answer, but it's easier to compile directly the source of sqlite with your files. Only one .c file, no dependency, no 32 or 64 bit problem, no installation problem. Best wishes. Noël On 29 June 2016 at 01:05, BOSECKER Nancy wrote: > Hi, > > I have a very

Re: [sqlite] UNIQUE constraint violation

On 2016/06/29 6:36 AM, Joe Pasquariello wrote: On 6/28/2016 4:52 PM, Simon Slavin wrote: On 28 Jun 2016, at 11:22pm, Joe Pasquariello wrote: SELECT udatetime,typeof(udatetime),udatetime-1415000934 FROM eventlog where device like '%M14' and udatetime=1415000934 udatetime

Re: [sqlite] how to use sqlite from classic ASP with no installation...

Am 29.06.2016 um 07:52 schrieb Olaf Schmidt: Sorry, the line below (of the Test-Script) does not match with the little "folder-layout" I've mentioned in my previous post - so it needs to be adapted to the concrete (absolute or relative) path, where the manifest (along with the 3 Binaries) will