> You can't partly apply WAL always, but there are very valid cases where you can do that to recover.

Without mentioning the exact set of cases where recovery is possible and it isn't, going "PSA: SQLite is unreliable!!1one" is highly irresponsible. I think there's quite a bit of criticism going around though, you could add them to your blog article :)

Please also consider the fact that SQLite being a transactional database, it is usually not possible to expose a WAL level error to the user. The correct way to address it is to probably come up with a list of cases where it is possible, and then send in a patch, or at least a proposal, of how to address it.

> Please provide citation on where I said that [SQLite is impossible to contribute].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44672563

▲

avinassh 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't know if you have some personal vendetta against me, because you are citing things I did not say. I did not say SQLite is unreliable. I said SQLite stops at checksum errors found in WAL and stops recovery, which may lead to data loss. Which part of this is incorrect?

On SQLite contribution, I did not say it's "impossible." I said it's not open to contribution. This is the exact phrase from the linked page.

	▲	CJefferson 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		To me it isn't incorrect, but misleading. A checksum error means corruption, corruption in the main database just randomly can cause any damage. Why specially consider checksum error in the WAL?