James Carlson wrote: > Liane Praza writes: > >> I don't inherently cringe. (Others might, but they can speak for >> themselves.) It's the fact that sqlite3 has an entirely different >> library API, plus the extensive retesting that would be required that's >> kept us from prioritizing the work since there would be no >> administratively visible benefit from the switch. But, I have no reason >> to discourage someone from exploring it. >> > > Having fewer copies would be a benefit, though I agree that (other > than patching) it'd be hard for an admin to see that. > > >> (SMF's not the only consumer of sqlite2 in ON though, I thought. >> Removing SMF's use wouldn't change the other consumers' needs.) >> > > The only other one that does the libsqlite.o reach-around is idmapd, > and in the review for PSARC 2006/315, they said they were using it > because SMF was using it. > > This is super feedback!
Thanks a lot ./C
