On 17 May 2018, at 8:17pm, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 2018, at 12:54 PM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote:
>> [snip] doing it properly might be how SQLite 4 would start [snip]
> That sort reasoning gave us Python 3, which forked the Python community for 
> about a decade.

I think a decade would be reasonable.  Look at how many different versions of 
Windows Microsoft supports and for how long.  SQLite has many more 
installations and runs on many more platforms.

Support for SQLite3 has to continue for another 20 years, I think.  By 2040, if 
SQlite3 is still adding new features, and at the same time provide full 
backward compatibility for everything that worked in 3.0.0, it's going to be 
some horrendous mess.

> It might be nice to “pull a ZFS” on SQLite and redo it all to use 2^128 
> everywhere so the limits never matter again.

Or APFS.  Besides 128-bit addresses, it might be useful to redesign from the 
ground up for 64-bit processors, with a view to incorporating 128-bit processes 
in the future.  Not to mention that some design choices made for SQLite3 are 
based on cached spinning rust.

sqlite-users mailing list

Reply via email to