On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Charles Leifer <colei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it conceivable that this change could be rolled back? > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Charles Leifer <colei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I hate to be critical of Dr Hipp, but this commit stinks. Even if using > > the sqlite3 shell isn't the blessed way of producing a backup, I'm sure a > > lot of folks prefer it to the online backup API. It's this simple: > I reached to colleagues about this, to find out if they depend on .dump in our commercial server product heavily using SQLite, and indeed they do. In fact for many admin tasks, their rule is "use only the official shell via scripts" and no C code, so they also consider this change a "regression" I'm afraid. FWIW. --DD PS: Just at the time we're upgrading all our 3rd parties to gear up for our next release _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
