On 29/06/16 09:45, Drago, William @ CSG - NARDA-MITEQ wrote: > Aren't there things like that [checksums] already built in to the hard disk > controllers (CRC, Reed Solomon, etc.)?
They are at a different level and can only detect issues in what they see. For example SQLite can create a page of data, and then hand it off to the C library which then hands it off to the kernel which then hands it off to various filesystem drivers which then hand it off to various block devices which then hand it off over a bus of some sort to the storage. If corruption happens at any point before getting to the storage then the corrupted version is going to be considered correct by the storage. Having checksums at the SQLite level means that SQLite can itself verify that what it wrote (and went through any number of other layers) is what it gets back. Short of extremely robust C libraries, operating systems, drivers, and hardware, SQLite is the sensible place to add checksums. The "Lite" bit guarantees that SQLite is not run on robust everything, but usually on less reliable components. That is why I am somewhat disappointed the SQLite team doesn't see value in implementing the request. Roger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
