+1 for fts3 or fts2_1 :-) ------------------------------------------- We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team building products. Position is in the Washington D.C. metro area. If interested contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Scott Hess [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" <[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://www.sqlite.org/lang_altertable.html . As far as I can tell, > > this means that there is no option to do a cheap schema upgrade to get > > the correct semantics. Am I missing a trick? > > 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 is dangerous. If you > mess up, you corrupt the database file. Ooh, I think that tips me away from fixing fts2, because it's scary and Google Gears disables PRAGMA. At least Joe threw in a vote for just versioning things to fts3 - anyone want to vote against? -scott ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
