[DBD-SQLite] Removing the on-by-default referential integrity.

Adam Kennedy adamkennedybackup at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 03:28:12 GMT 2009

The fact support is still light is all the more reason to get optional
support out there in wide distribution, so more than just this mailing
list have a chance to test it thoroughly.

At the moment, we're holding up this testing to just the people
willing to play with potentially unstable releases.

As for why have a prod release, because of all the other fixes and
changes we've got bundled up. We finally pass our test suite
completely everywhere, so far as I can tell from CPAN Testers. I
really want that out there.

Adam K

2009/11/3 Kenichi Ishigaki <kishigaki at gmail.com>:
> Then let's wait for another month and another sqlite release.
> Releasing just before this Christmas would make more sense.
> In the end, the current sqlite is the first version with
> foreign keys support. They are doing pubic tests right now,
> and we haven't seen, and will see the result probably in a
> month or so. Why do we need to rush out our stable release?
> As I wrote in the previous mail, we need more tests. As of
> this writing, we have virtually no tests for foreign keys
> and virtual tables they use.
> Besides, we have #48600 that reported several downstream
> distributions were revealed broken by our more strict
> error handling, which I haven't checked fully but it looks
> like they still have issues like this:
> http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=50591
> Probably we should let people know that sqlite has been
> supporting "IF (NOT) EXISTS" for some (or a long?) time,
> and they can fix these issue with that clause right now,
> even before our next stable release. A few nights ago,
> DBIC people also found this issue, and they said maybe
> their issue can be fixed in DBIC. It's better to give
> people more time to test.
> I think removing the on-by-default bit doesn't help,
> especially if it's to release early. It will eventually
> be turned on. And most probably they know how to cope with
> it when it's enabled. As foreign keys have long been ignored,
> if they are already there, they are for other engines people
> are using in other places.
> Kenichi
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 11:03:09 +1100, Adam Kennedy <adamkennedybackup at gmail.com> wrote:
>>For the first production release of DBD::SQLite with foreign keys,
>>it's starting to make me nervous that we will enable it by default.
>>As things currently stand, nobody that is using SQLite has ever seen
>>this feature before. They haven't had the chance to work with it at
>>all before we shove it down their throats.
>>I think I'd like to follow SQLite itself for now and default it off.
>>Adam K
>>DBD-SQLite mailing list
>>DBD-SQLite at lists.scsys.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> DBD-SQLite mailing list
> DBD-SQLite at lists.scsys.co.uk
> http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbd-sqlite

More information about the DBD-SQLite mailing list