Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface - offt

On Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:56 PM, Miha Vrhovnik wrote: > It's time to get rid of your current e-mail client ... > ... and start using si.Mail. > > It's small & free. ( http://www.simail.si/ ) A nice little advert and out of curiosity I went to the website and had a little look around. I

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface - offt

Miha Vrhovnik wrote on 1/7/2010:> >Content analysis details: (10.3 points, 7.0 required)> >> > pts rule name description> > -- --> > 2.4 DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS RBL: Envelope sender listed in

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

On Monday, May 03, 2010 4:47 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote: Subject: Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface > Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite > C API: > >int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*); > > The new database connection

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 08:17:11AM +0100, Ben scratched on the wall: > Also, is there any information on the newer format for curious users? > I can only see a single paragraph on it at: > http://www.sqlite.org/compile.html That's all there is to it. v4 added a different encoding for

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Ben wrote: > > On 3 May 2010, at 15:47, D. Richard Hipp wrote: > > Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite > > C API: > > > >int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*); > > > > ... > >

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

On 3 May 2010, at 15:47, D. Richard Hipp wrote: > Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite > C API: > >int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*); > > ... > > (3) The default database file format would be format 4 (meaning that > new

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/03/2010 07:47 AM, D. Richard Hipp wrote: > Question 2: Are there other foibles that we could correct using > sqlite3_open_v3? I'd like the shared cache busy handling to be exactly the same as non-shared cache. ie if the only line of code

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

* D. Richard Hipp: > Question 2: Are there other foibles that we could correct using > sqlite3_open_v3? You could default the page size to the file system block size (if it can be determined). ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

, 2010 7:48 AM To: sqlite-...@sqlite.org; General Discussion of SQLite Database Subject: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite C API: int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*); The new database

Re: [sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 10:47 -0400, D. Richard Hipp wrote: > Question 1: Are there any objections to this approach? > None here. My web-based applications (written in C) have just one call to the existing open_v2 call so it is trivial to change them. > Question 2: Are there other foibles that

[sqlite] Proposed new sqlite3_open_v3() interface

Community feedback is requested for the following proposed new SQLite C API: int sqlite3_open_v3(const char*, sqlite3**, int, const char*); The new database connection constructor would work exactly like sqlite3_open_v2() with the following exceptions: (1) Foreign Key constraints would