On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Cecil Westerhof <cldwesterhof at gmail.com> wrote: ?<snip>?
> > ?I do not think it is. When you add something to the database to signify > that a primary key is not allowed to be NULL, then this is not in an old > database, ergo in the old database NULLs are allowed. Where does backward > compatibility get broken? > ?I am somewhat hesitant to ?join in to this, however briefly. What occurs to me on the breaking of backward in compatibility is an old application, which is dependent on NULLs in a primary key, creating a _new_ database. Perhaps because it has a "unload" and "reload" or "import" capability. Or even one which depends on the user using the sqlite3 command to do backups. If a PRAGMA were to be established as you have suggested, then it needs to default to the _old_ way of doing things simply because the aforementioned old application will not know of it and thus not use it. > As I see it, it is as with partial indexes. That is a big change (I think), > but it did not break backward compatibility. > > -- "He must have a Teflon brain -- nothing sticks to it" Phyllis Diller Maranatha! <>< John McKown
