[tptacek]

This isn't so much a list of pet peeves as it is the almost universal way people that work seriously with SQLite configure the database. It's reasonable to suggest that the alternative settings for each of these suggestions is probably the wrong default for 2026.

[Animats]

> It's reasonable to suggest that the alternative settings for each of these suggestions is probably the wrong default for 2026.

That's the key concept here. When tightening up the defaults, an "edition" mechanism is a good solution.

Now we need this for C/C++, which have much legacy stuff which ought to go away for new code. This is more feasible than it used to be, because "Convert this Edition 4 code to Edition 5" is something LLMs can do now.

I'd never seen all the rules for SQLite soft typing written out before. Those are more complicated than strong typing.

[tialaramex]

> Now we need this for C/C++

P1881 Epochs proposed to WG21 (the C++ standards committee) in 2019 by Vittorio Romeo

The committee found plenty of problems with this, and made it clear that if Vittorio did all the hard work to resolve those problems they would find more, P1881 was abandoned.

There was a Reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1tja9zr/c_profiles_a_c... which suggested that the "Profiles" idea Bjarne is pushing for C++ 29 could be used to deliver this.

So, you're not the first person to notice that this is a good idea, P1881 was written after Rust's 2018 Edition, but before 2021 Edition with its even more significant improvements. I firmly believe Rust's Editions unlock not only technical possibilities (though it does certainly do that) it unlocks an appetite from users which is good for your ecosystem.

[cenamus]

I hope we're getting it for C++ with CppFront, but I'm not hopeful it'll ever become mainstream

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

[lelanthran]

> Now we need this for C/C++, which have much legacy stuff which ought to go away for new code.

In C++, certainly. In C, though, what do you not do in C23 that you was doing in C99?

[bashauma]

IIRC gets() ?

[lelanthran]

I don't think that counts - fgets (the safer replacement) was already in C89.

"Modern C" by 1999 already included "Don't use gets()"

[Animats]

The key concept of an "edition" is that you can deprecate stuff. "gets()" should have been pulled from the standard library around 1990 or so, along with "strcat" and its frenemies.

[doc_ick]

I’d say these are reasonable settings for most uses. Though do you know of surveys that back this up? I don’t mean to nit pick too much, I’d just like to see common uses and the data.

[tptacek]

SQLite is used in a lot of unconventional settings (for SQL databases) where these settings don't make as much sense. But that's what makes the "edition" useful; it captures the use case we all mean when we're thinking of the "database" lego in an application stack.

[mikepurvis]

While that's true, editions are more about leaving legacy decisions behind while keeping the backward compatibility promise.

Even if you're in one of those unconventional settings (say, a bare-metal microcontroller or something), you'd probably still start from edition 2026 and mutate your settings accordingly, rather than using the defaults that are 26 years old.

[tialaramex]

Yeah, that's important. Rust's 2015 edition is worse, not just different from what you'd write today with 2024 edition. There's a clear direction of travel.

[doc_ick]

So you’re saying there’s no data to group these settings by editions.

[pstuart]

You are probably correct, but I imagine the SQLite team's dedication to backwards compatibility has things the way they are so that existing systems can user later versions a swap without worrying about changing the SQL using it.

[justinsaccount]

The entire point of "SQLite should have editions" is so that projects can opt into a set of modern defaults for 2026 and not get all of those backwards compatible decisions from 20 years ago.

[usefulcat]

If they’re opt-in, how could the new defaults be a problem for backwards compatibility?

[dspillett]

GPP's wording suggests that the defaults simply be changed to what is being discussed as more generally sensible in current times, rather than being opt-in.

Given how many projects are potentially out there effectively relying on the current settings, and SQLite's general attitude to backwards compatibility, that would likely not be considered a good idea. Opting in with an edition flag for new (or updating) projects does seem like a good solution to this to serve all of old, active, and new projects, but it would increase potential bug surface area and therefor testing requirements, and the existing setting do allow all that to be opted in/out to/from already (and it is only four settings we are talking about here).

That FKs being enforced is set per-connection rather than at the database level is something that surprised me a lot when I found out. A way of setting that at DB creation (or via ALTER DATABASE after) seems like quite an omission because if you have multiple potential routes that can update the same DB any one of them could cause serious the others will encounter.

[sethev]

Yes, agree. These are very sane defaults and match what I use..