> More broadly, I don't think a single definition of 'durable' (as in ACID D) for transactions is particularly useful.
> Much more useful is to ask "what kinds of failures could cause committed transactions to be lost?"
All these articles talking about durability as a singular term should be warned. Writing to disk is not durable under certain circumstances. fsync is not durable under certain circumstances. Two-phase commit is not durable under certain circumstances. Multi-data center commit is not durable against the Death Star too.
The documentation seems pretty clear to me - it describes specifically what each option controls and the implications of using it. Besides debating whether the default behavior is should be described as durable or not, this post's author seems to understand exactly what each option actually does.
Perhaps what's unclear is when to select which option?
Also, even if I've understood the docs correctly, a number of people in this thread and elsewhere have come to a different interpretation. I think that's much less likely to happen with the PostgreSQL docs.
And I'm sure you can understand why I began to doubt my own interpretation of the docs when SQLite's creator posted a comment saying the exact opposite of what I thought the docs said!
Fair! Fwiw, I enjoyed the post - hopefully my comment wasn't harsh.
I think it does come down to the definition of durable. The default in SQLite is that the data for a transaction will be written all the way to disk (with an fsync) and the rollback journal will be deleted (but without an fsync).
In this model, there is chance of losing only the last transaction and only if the whole system crashes (like a power failure) after deleting the journal but before your file system makes that durable. If your application crashes, you're still fine.
That's significantly more durable than an asynchronous commit in Postgres, though. In an asynchronous commit, the transaction will complete before any data is written to disk at all - the data is only in memory, and many transactions can queue up in memory during the wal_writer_delay. All of those will definitely be lost if Postgres stops uncleanly for any reason (for example a crash, oomkill, or power failure).
> By default, SQLite is not durable, because the default value of journal_mode is DELETE, and the default value of synchronous is FULL, which doesn't provide durability in DELETE mode.
From the documentation, it seems like synchronous being FULL does provide durability of the database in DELETE mode, as FULL means it calls fsync after the transaction is completed. I think you may be confusing durability of the journal file with durability of the database. I don't think WAL can ever really have a durable transaction; it is essentially based on leaving a transaction open until it gets "check-pointed" or actually committed to the database file.
> I don't think WAL can ever really have a durable transaction; it is essentially based on leaving a transaction open until it gets "check-pointed" or actually committed to the database file.
In general: WAL means you write the transaction to the WAL, fsync (in sqlite, this depends upon the sync mode], and then return it's done to the application. The transaction is then durable: even if the database crashes, the contents of the WAL will be applied to the database file.
Checkpointing later just lets you throw away that part of the WAL and not have to replay as much to the database file.
My understanding of DELETE mode is that the transaction is not committed until the rollback journal file is deleted - if the rollback journal is present when sqlite opens a database, it applies the rollback journal to undo the changes that the transaction made. See https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html#1_deleting_the_roll...
If the directory containing the rollback journal is not fsynced after the journal file is deleted, then the journal file might rematerialize after a power failure, causing sqlite to roll back a committed transaction. And fsyncing the directory doesn't seem to happen unless you set synchronous to EXTRA, per the docs cited in the blog post.
> If the directory containing the rollback journal is not fsynced after the journal file is deleted, then the journal file might rematerialize after a power failure, causing sqlite to roll back a committed transaction. And fsyncing the directory doesn't seem to happen unless you set synchronous to EXTRA, per the docs cited in the blog post.
I think this is the part that is confusing.
The fsyncing of the directory is supposed to be done by the filesystem/OS itself, not the application.
From man fsync,
As well as flushing the file data, fsync() also flushes the metadata information associated with the file (see inode(7)).
So from sqlite's perspective on DELETE it is either: before the fsync call, and not committed, or after the fsync call, and committed (or partially written somehow and needing rollback.)
Unfortunately it seems like this has traditionally been broken on many systems, requiring workarounds, like SYNCHRONOUS = EXTRA.
No, the metadata is information like the modification time and permissions, not the directory entry.
The next paragraph in the man page explains this:
> Calling fsync() does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync() on a file descriptor for the directory is also needed.
Edit to add: I don't think there's a single Unix-like OS on which fsync would also fsync the directory, since a file can appear in an arbitrary number of directories, and the kernel doesn't know all the directories in which an open file appears.
This is a moot point anyways, because in DELETE mode, the operation that needs to be durably persisted is the unlinking of the journal file - what would you fsync for that besides the directory itself?
OK, interesting, I think I see... So you are asking about if SQLite opens and finds a not-committed rollback journal that looks valid, then it rolls it back?
and found something similar to what you are asking in this comment before `sqlite3PagerCommitPhaseTwo`:
** When this function is called, the database file has been completely
** updated to reflect the changes made by the current transaction and
** synced to disk. The journal file still exists in the file-system
** though, and if a failure occurs at this point it will eventually
** be used as a hot-journal and the current transaction rolled back.
So, it does this:
** This function finalizes the journal file, either by deleting,
** truncating or partially zeroing it, so that it cannot be used
** for hot-journal rollback. Once this is done the transaction is
** irrevocably committed.
Assuming fsync works on both the main database and the hot journal, then I don't see a way that it is not durable? Because, it has to write and sync the full hot journal, then write to the main database, then zero out the hot journal, sync that, and only then does it atomically return from the commit? (assuming FULL and DELETE)
I don't follow. How would fsyncing the rollback journal affect the durability of the actual database? Do you actually think that the database would reapply an already committed journal whose ID in the header already indicates that the transaction was committed, when the database is already consistent? I really think you should re-review the definition of durability of a database, especially before saying the creator of SQLite is incorrect about its implementation.
It's specifically about fsyncing journal deletion. The problem isn't that it would reapply it if it was already used to rollback. Rather, the problem is that if you commit, and that commit has succeeded (and so your app believes that it has written the data and might e.g. perform some other actions on it), the deletion of the now-unneeded journal might not be flushed to disk in event of power loss or similar. So when you start the app again, SQLite sees said rollback journal, and - since it would be considered "hot" - applies it, effectively reverting the transaction that was supposedly already committed.
FWIW I don't think it's wrong per se. The article links to a HN comment in which Richard Hipp explains why this is the default behavior, and it does make sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45014296. At the same time, clearly, the definition of "durable" here could use some clarification.
Note that the comment by Richard Hipp is justifying why WAL mode is not durable by default. It's a completely reasonable explanation, and would be for DELETE mode too, yet his comment claims that DELETE mode is durable by default, which I can't reconcile with the docs.
>So when you start the app again, SQLite sees said rollback journal, and - since it would be considered "hot" - applies it, effectively reverting the transaction that was supposedly already committed.
Guys. The journal would not be a hot journal though, as the hot journal selection only applies if the database is in a inconsistent state. Otherwise, the database knows from the ID of the journal not to reapply an already applied rollback journal. The process you are talking about ONLY happens when the journal database has been corrupted state, and it has to try and file a file to help recover the database.
In terminal 1, I created a database and added a table to it:
$ sqlite3 testdb
sqlite> create table test (col int);
In terminal 2, I attached gdb to sqlite3 and set a breakpoint on unlink:
$ gdb sqlite3 `pidof sqlite3`
(gdb) b unlink
(gdb) c
Back in terminal 1, I inserted data into the table:
sqlite> insert into test values(123);
In terminal 3, I saved a copy of testdb-journal:
$ cp testdb-journal testdb-journal.save
Then in terminal 2, I resumed executing sqlite3:
(gdb) c
In terminal 1, the INSERT completed without error.
Back in terminal 3, I sent SIGKILL to sqlite3, simulating a power failure:
$ killall -9 sqlite3
I then restored testdb-journal, simulating what could happen after a power failure when the parent directory is not fsynced:
$ mv testdb-journal.save testdb-journal
I then opened testdb again and ran `SELECT * FROM test` and it returned zero rows.
This proves int_19h and I are right - if the journal file comes back, SQLite will apply it and roll back a committed transaction.
I then confirmed with strace that, as the documentation says, the directory is only fsynced after unlink when synchronous=EXTRA. It doesn't happen with synchronous=FULL. So you need synchronous=EXTRA to get durability in DELETE mode.
I don't see any mention of checking IDs. Not saying you're wrong - I think the docs could very well be wrong - but could you provide a citation for that behavior?
Please read the entire document instead of just picking out sections; you will then be able to see where your misconceptions are occurring. You have attempted to make this same point three times, so I will say it for a third time; that section is about CORRUPTED databases, not database that are consistent after fsync.
I read the whole document. It doesn't mention IDs anywhere.
If you're not going to provide citations for your claims, yet criticize me for "picking out sections" when I provide citations, then continuing this conversation won't be productive.
The text in this document also directly contradicts what you're saying. Put another way: the presence of a hot journal is how SQLite determines the database might be corrupted.
> Otherwise, the database knows from the ID of the journal not to reapply an already applied rollback journal.
But it's not "already applied", that's the whole point. The transaction was committed, not rolled back, so the changes in transaction were persisted to disk and the journal was just thrown away. If it magically reappears again, how is SQLite supposed to know that it needs to be discarded again rather than applied to revert the change?
It's possible I've misunderstood how DELETE mode works. But here's the thing - I shouldn't have to understand how DELETE mode works to know what SQLite setting I need to use to get durability. Unfortunately, the SQLite docs don't clearly say what guarantees each setting provides - instead they talk about about what SQLite does when you choose the setting, leaving the reader to try to figure out if those actions provide durability. And the docs really make it seem like you need synchronous=EXTRA in DELETE mode to get durability, for the reasons explained above.
This is a docs problem; I'm not saying SQLite is buggy.
This may just be a expectations difference then. I would fully expect a developer to read the docs and know how a settings works to know what guarantees it has.
Durability also requires the file system implementation and the disk to do the right thing on fsync, which, if I recall past discussions correctly, isn’t a given.
There are some older fsync() bugs (as famously explored by Postgres developers: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Fsync_Errors ) but I'm not aware of any modern mainstream kernel where this is broken. If I'm wrong, please tell me!
An application that really wants confidence in a write—to the extent that the underlying device and drivers allow—should use O_DIRECT. Or maybe there is a modern equivalent with io-uring. But that is not easy engineering :)
O_DIRECT in now way absolves you from needing to call fsync because fsync ALSO sends a signal to the storage device to flush the buffer if it has anything which is important for durability.
What OP is referring to is that some drives ignore that signal for performance reasons and there’s nothing SW can do to solve that part.
SQLite is an incredible piece of software, and its commitment to backward compatibility is deeply admirable. But that same promise has also become a limitation.
v3.0 was first released in 2004—over 20 years ago—and the industry has changed dramatically since then.
I can’t help but wish for a “v4.0” release: one that deliberately breaks backward compatibility and outdated defaults, in order to offer a cleaner, more modern foundation.
Note: I'm not asking for new functionality per se. But just a version of SQLite that defaulted to how it should be used, deployed in 2025.
The focus of that experiment was to find out of LSM-based storage[^1] would prove to be faster. It turned out that LSM, for SQLite's workloads, did not provide enough benefit to justify the upheaval.
This is disingenuous and probably was written this way for HN cred and clicks. Sqlite's test suite simulates just about every kind of failure you can imagine - this document is worth reading if you have any doubts: https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html
> Sqlite's test suite simulates just about every kind of failure you can imagine
The page you link even mentions scenarios they know about that do happen and that they still assume won't happen. So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.
> SQLite assumes that the operating system will buffer writes and that a write request will return before data has actually been stored in the mass storage device. SQLite further assumes that write operations will be reordered by the operating system. For this reason, SQLite does a "flush" or "fsync" operation at key points. SQLite assumes that the flush or fsync will not return until all pending write operations for the file that is being flushed have completed. We are told that the flush and fsync primitives are broken on some versions of Windows and Linux. This is unfortunate. It opens SQLite up to the possibility of database corruption following a power loss in the middle of a commit. However, there is nothing that SQLite can do to test for or remedy the situation. SQLite assumes that the operating system that it is running on works as advertised. If that is not quite the case, well then hopefully you will not lose power too often.
There was a time that Oracle databases used raw disk partitions to minimize the influence of the OS in what happens between memory and storage. It was more for multiple instances looking at the same SCSI device (Oracle Parallel Server).
> So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.
And? If you write to a disk and later this disk is missing, you don't have durability. SQLite cannot automatically help you to commit your writes to a satellite for durability against species ending event on Earth, and hence its "durability" has limits exactly as spelled out by them.
Were this a one off, you would have a point. It isn't, however. My experience over many years has been that you can't ever be certain about what is actually going on, based on the documentation alone, and that you wind up in Reddit and Stack Overflow and a plethora of blog posts attempting to figure it out. With LLMs, we have only more sources of contradictory and chronically obsolescent input.
There is an actual problem here. However I can see that, based on the contributions from the SQLite downmod mafia, this talk isn't welcome, so I'm off to some other thing. Have a nice weekend, I suppose.
Oh, come on. There's no open or secret attempt at censoring talk about sqlite on HN. (The story is #11 on the frontpage the minute the comment was made.)
Marc Brooker said this: https://x.com/MarcJBrooker/status/1960809302333251876 which echos my sentiment. I will just repost it here:
> More broadly, I don't think a single definition of 'durable' (as in ACID D) for transactions is particularly useful.
> Much more useful is to ask "what kinds of failures could cause committed transactions to be lost?"
All these articles talking about durability as a singular term should be warned. Writing to disk is not durable under certain circumstances. fsync is not durable under certain circumstances. Two-phase commit is not durable under certain circumstances. Multi-data center commit is not durable against the Death Star too.
Recent and related:
SQLite (with WAL) doesn't do `fsync` on each commit under default settings - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45005071 - Aug 2025 (90 comments)
with a relevant comment by the creator of SQLite here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45014296
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45068594 - thanks int_19h!)
The documentation seems pretty clear to me - it describes specifically what each option controls and the implications of using it. Besides debating whether the default behavior is should be described as durable or not, this post's author seems to understand exactly what each option actually does.
Perhaps what's unclear is when to select which option?
I found the documentation much harder to parse than the equivalent PostgreSQL docs (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-async-commit.htm...).
Also, even if I've understood the docs correctly, a number of people in this thread and elsewhere have come to a different interpretation. I think that's much less likely to happen with the PostgreSQL docs.
And I'm sure you can understand why I began to doubt my own interpretation of the docs when SQLite's creator posted a comment saying the exact opposite of what I thought the docs said!
Fair! Fwiw, I enjoyed the post - hopefully my comment wasn't harsh.
I think it does come down to the definition of durable. The default in SQLite is that the data for a transaction will be written all the way to disk (with an fsync) and the rollback journal will be deleted (but without an fsync).
In this model, there is chance of losing only the last transaction and only if the whole system crashes (like a power failure) after deleting the journal but before your file system makes that durable. If your application crashes, you're still fine.
That's significantly more durable than an asynchronous commit in Postgres, though. In an asynchronous commit, the transaction will complete before any data is written to disk at all - the data is only in memory, and many transactions can queue up in memory during the wal_writer_delay. All of those will definitely be lost if Postgres stops uncleanly for any reason (for example a crash, oomkill, or power failure).
> By default, SQLite is not durable, because the default value of journal_mode is DELETE, and the default value of synchronous is FULL, which doesn't provide durability in DELETE mode.
From the documentation, it seems like synchronous being FULL does provide durability of the database in DELETE mode, as FULL means it calls fsync after the transaction is completed. I think you may be confusing durability of the journal file with durability of the database. I don't think WAL can ever really have a durable transaction; it is essentially based on leaving a transaction open until it gets "check-pointed" or actually committed to the database file.
> I don't think WAL can ever really have a durable transaction; it is essentially based on leaving a transaction open until it gets "check-pointed" or actually committed to the database file.
In general: WAL means you write the transaction to the WAL, fsync (in sqlite, this depends upon the sync mode], and then return it's done to the application. The transaction is then durable: even if the database crashes, the contents of the WAL will be applied to the database file.
Checkpointing later just lets you throw away that part of the WAL and not have to replay as much to the database file.
My understanding of DELETE mode is that the transaction is not committed until the rollback journal file is deleted - if the rollback journal is present when sqlite opens a database, it applies the rollback journal to undo the changes that the transaction made. See https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html#1_deleting_the_roll...
If the directory containing the rollback journal is not fsynced after the journal file is deleted, then the journal file might rematerialize after a power failure, causing sqlite to roll back a committed transaction. And fsyncing the directory doesn't seem to happen unless you set synchronous to EXTRA, per the docs cited in the blog post.
> If the directory containing the rollback journal is not fsynced after the journal file is deleted, then the journal file might rematerialize after a power failure, causing sqlite to roll back a committed transaction. And fsyncing the directory doesn't seem to happen unless you set synchronous to EXTRA, per the docs cited in the blog post.
I think this is the part that is confusing.
The fsyncing of the directory is supposed to be done by the filesystem/OS itself, not the application.
From man fsync,
So from sqlite's perspective on DELETE it is either: before the fsync call, and not committed, or after the fsync call, and committed (or partially written somehow and needing rollback.)Unfortunately it seems like this has traditionally been broken on many systems, requiring workarounds, like SYNCHRONOUS = EXTRA.
No, the metadata is information like the modification time and permissions, not the directory entry.
The next paragraph in the man page explains this:
> Calling fsync() does not necessarily ensure that the entry in the directory containing the file has also reached disk. For that an explicit fsync() on a file descriptor for the directory is also needed.
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fsync.2.html
Edit to add: I don't think there's a single Unix-like OS on which fsync would also fsync the directory, since a file can appear in an arbitrary number of directories, and the kernel doesn't know all the directories in which an open file appears.
This is a moot point anyways, because in DELETE mode, the operation that needs to be durably persisted is the unlinking of the journal file - what would you fsync for that besides the directory itself?
OK, interesting, I think I see... So you are asking about if SQLite opens and finds a not-committed rollback journal that looks valid, then it rolls it back?
I was more curious so I looked at the code here:
https://sqlite.org/src/file?name=src/pager.c&ci=trunk
and found something similar to what you are asking in this comment before `sqlite3PagerCommitPhaseTwo`:
So, it does this: Assuming fsync works on both the main database and the hot journal, then I don't see a way that it is not durable? Because, it has to write and sync the full hot journal, then write to the main database, then zero out the hot journal, sync that, and only then does it atomically return from the commit? (assuming FULL and DELETE)>if the rollback journal is present when sqlite opens a database, it applies the rollback journal to undo the changes that the transaction made. See https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html#1_deleting_the_roll...
I don't follow. How would fsyncing the rollback journal affect the durability of the actual database? Do you actually think that the database would reapply an already committed journal whose ID in the header already indicates that the transaction was committed, when the database is already consistent? I really think you should re-review the definition of durability of a database, especially before saying the creator of SQLite is incorrect about its implementation.
It's specifically about fsyncing journal deletion. The problem isn't that it would reapply it if it was already used to rollback. Rather, the problem is that if you commit, and that commit has succeeded (and so your app believes that it has written the data and might e.g. perform some other actions on it), the deletion of the now-unneeded journal might not be flushed to disk in event of power loss or similar. So when you start the app again, SQLite sees said rollback journal, and - since it would be considered "hot" - applies it, effectively reverting the transaction that was supposedly already committed.
FWIW I don't think it's wrong per se. The article links to a HN comment in which Richard Hipp explains why this is the default behavior, and it does make sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45014296. At the same time, clearly, the definition of "durable" here could use some clarification.
Yes, that's exactly right.
Note that the comment by Richard Hipp is justifying why WAL mode is not durable by default. It's a completely reasonable explanation, and would be for DELETE mode too, yet his comment claims that DELETE mode is durable by default, which I can't reconcile with the docs.
>So when you start the app again, SQLite sees said rollback journal, and - since it would be considered "hot" - applies it, effectively reverting the transaction that was supposedly already committed.
Guys. The journal would not be a hot journal though, as the hot journal selection only applies if the database is in a inconsistent state. Otherwise, the database knows from the ID of the journal not to reapply an already applied rollback journal. The process you are talking about ONLY happens when the journal database has been corrupted state, and it has to try and file a file to help recover the database.
OK, I just tested it:
In terminal 1, I created a database and added a table to it:
In terminal 2, I attached gdb to sqlite3 and set a breakpoint on unlink: Back in terminal 1, I inserted data into the table: In terminal 3, I saved a copy of testdb-journal: Then in terminal 2, I resumed executing sqlite3: In terminal 1, the INSERT completed without error.Back in terminal 3, I sent SIGKILL to sqlite3, simulating a power failure:
I then restored testdb-journal, simulating what could happen after a power failure when the parent directory is not fsynced: I then opened testdb again and ran `SELECT * FROM test` and it returned zero rows.This proves int_19h and I are right - if the journal file comes back, SQLite will apply it and roll back a committed transaction.
I then confirmed with strace that, as the documentation says, the directory is only fsynced after unlink when synchronous=EXTRA. It doesn't happen with synchronous=FULL. So you need synchronous=EXTRA to get durability in DELETE mode.
The docs list 5 conditions that all must be satisfied for the journal to be considered hot: https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html#_hot_rollback_journ...
I believe they would all be satisfied.
I don't see any mention of checking IDs. Not saying you're wrong - I think the docs could very well be wrong - but could you provide a citation for that behavior?
Please read the entire document instead of just picking out sections; you will then be able to see where your misconceptions are occurring. You have attempted to make this same point three times, so I will say it for a third time; that section is about CORRUPTED databases, not database that are consistent after fsync.
I read the whole document. It doesn't mention IDs anywhere.
If you're not going to provide citations for your claims, yet criticize me for "picking out sections" when I provide citations, then continuing this conversation won't be productive.
The text in this document also directly contradicts what you're saying. Put another way: the presence of a hot journal is how SQLite determines the database might be corrupted.
https://sqlite.org/lockingv3.html#hot_journals
> Otherwise, the database knows from the ID of the journal not to reapply an already applied rollback journal.
But it's not "already applied", that's the whole point. The transaction was committed, not rolled back, so the changes in transaction were persisted to disk and the journal was just thrown away. If it magically reappears again, how is SQLite supposed to know that it needs to be discarded again rather than applied to revert the change?
I'm pretty sure I understand what durability means; the definition is not hard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durability_(database_systems)
It's possible I've misunderstood how DELETE mode works. But here's the thing - I shouldn't have to understand how DELETE mode works to know what SQLite setting I need to use to get durability. Unfortunately, the SQLite docs don't clearly say what guarantees each setting provides - instead they talk about about what SQLite does when you choose the setting, leaving the reader to try to figure out if those actions provide durability. And the docs really make it seem like you need synchronous=EXTRA in DELETE mode to get durability, for the reasons explained above.
This is a docs problem; I'm not saying SQLite is buggy.
This may just be a expectations difference then. I would fully expect a developer to read the docs and know how a settings works to know what guarantees it has.
It seems like a bug report on what is not clear in the documentation would be highly useful.
Durability also requires the file system implementation and the disk to do the right thing on fsync, which, if I recall past discussions correctly, isn’t a given.
There are some older fsync() bugs (as famously explored by Postgres developers: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Fsync_Errors ) but I'm not aware of any modern mainstream kernel where this is broken. If I'm wrong, please tell me!
An application that really wants confidence in a write—to the extent that the underlying device and drivers allow—should use O_DIRECT. Or maybe there is a modern equivalent with io-uring. But that is not easy engineering :)
O_DIRECT in now way absolves you from needing to call fsync because fsync ALSO sends a signal to the storage device to flush the buffer if it has anything which is important for durability.
What OP is referring to is that some drives ignore that signal for performance reasons and there’s nothing SW can do to solve that part.
io_uring in no way changes the rules here.
Nothing prevents using O_DIRECT as an open-flag for a fd used in other io_uring operations.
But I'm not sure I'd necessarily think of O_DIRECT as a way of improving "confidence in a write". It's a way to get a specific behavior.
Technically I think you need O_SYNC. O_DIRECT does pretty much the same but its intention is different.
macOS is a popular OS that has a fast and loose relationship to that syscall without F_FULLFSYNC
Take a look at Alex Miller's diagrams for what function calls are actually doing on various systems.
https://transactional.blog/how-to-learn/disk-io
SQLite is an incredible piece of software, and its commitment to backward compatibility is deeply admirable. But that same promise has also become a limitation.
v3.0 was first released in 2004—over 20 years ago—and the industry has changed dramatically since then.
I can’t help but wish for a “v4.0” release: one that deliberately breaks backward compatibility and outdated defaults, in order to offer a cleaner, more modern foundation.
Note: I'm not asking for new functionality per se. But just a version of SQLite that defaulted to how it should be used, deployed in 2025.
There was an attempt/experiment to develop SQLite 4: https://sqlite.org/src4/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki
The focus of that experiment was to find out of LSM-based storage[^1] would prove to be faster. It turned out that LSM, for SQLite's workloads, did not provide enough benefit to justify the upheaval.
[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_merge-tree
https://turso.tech I think attracts a lot of the people trying add new features / improve SQLite rough edges
This is disingenuous and probably was written this way for HN cred and clicks. Sqlite's test suite simulates just about every kind of failure you can imagine - this document is worth reading if you have any doubts: https://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html
> Sqlite's test suite simulates just about every kind of failure you can imagine
The page you link even mentions scenarios they know about that do happen and that they still assume won't happen. So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.
> SQLite assumes that the operating system will buffer writes and that a write request will return before data has actually been stored in the mass storage device. SQLite further assumes that write operations will be reordered by the operating system. For this reason, SQLite does a "flush" or "fsync" operation at key points. SQLite assumes that the flush or fsync will not return until all pending write operations for the file that is being flushed have completed. We are told that the flush and fsync primitives are broken on some versions of Windows and Linux. This is unfortunate. It opens SQLite up to the possibility of database corruption following a power loss in the middle of a commit. However, there is nothing that SQLite can do to test for or remedy the situation. SQLite assumes that the operating system that it is running on works as advertised. If that is not quite the case, well then hopefully you will not lose power too often.
There was a time that Oracle databases used raw disk partitions to minimize the influence of the OS in what happens between memory and storage. It was more for multiple instances looking at the same SCSI device (Oracle Parallel Server).
I don't think that is often done now.
> So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.
And? If you write to a disk and later this disk is missing, you don't have durability. SQLite cannot automatically help you to commit your writes to a satellite for durability against species ending event on Earth, and hence its "durability" has limits exactly as spelled out by them.
That document addresses atomicity, not durability, and is thus non-responsive to my concerns.
I can't help but feel that the difference to other DBs is that they just don't have these knobs or tell you at all.
PostgreSQL has the knobs and I find the documentation about them very clear: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-async-commit.htm...
So this article ask exactly the same as the reply do Dr Hipps comment, just in a 1000 words, instead of 10? Whether the docs are out of sync?
> Whether the docs are out of sync?
Were this a one off, you would have a point. It isn't, however. My experience over many years has been that you can't ever be certain about what is actually going on, based on the documentation alone, and that you wind up in Reddit and Stack Overflow and a plethora of blog posts attempting to figure it out. With LLMs, we have only more sources of contradictory and chronically obsolescent input.
There is an actual problem here. However I can see that, based on the contributions from the SQLite downmod mafia, this talk isn't welcome, so I'm off to some other thing. Have a nice weekend, I suppose.
> the SQLite downmod mafia
Oh, come on. There's no open or secret attempt at censoring talk about sqlite on HN. (The story is #11 on the frontpage the minute the comment was made.)