508104 - Upgrade to SQLite 3.6.16

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Storage, defect)

Description

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

Attachment: v1.0

Comment 1

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

Comment on attachment 392321 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

Extracting the amalgamation into mozilla-central, this builds and passes storage tests.

Comment 2

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e8b7341268df
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5c55a3dc8a87

Comment 3

[Henrik Skupin [:whimboo][⌚️UTC+1]]

Even with the upgrade it is not possible to have profiles on a via SMB connected share. See bug 502283.

Tested with Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20090820 Minefield/3.7a1pre ID:20090820030630

Comment 4

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Upgrading sqlite on the stable branches is scary -- what happens to existing databases? In particular we need answers to bug 503770 comment 5 and 6 before considering this.

Comment 5

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Please re-request approval after answering comment 4.

Comment 6

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Upgrading sqlite on the stable branches is scary -- what happens to existing
> databases? In particular we need answers to bug 503770 comment 5 and 6 before
> considering this.
I've answered comment 5.  I think not crashing is a better behavior than crashing, regardless of the state of the database.  If we have a bug there where we silently fail, we should fix that but we aren't leaving users any less secure by not crashing (their database is already not reliable).

Comment 7

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 392321 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.0

Approved for 1.9.1.4, a=dveditz for release-drivers

Comment 8

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/f39f311f9032

Comment 9

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

This doesn't need to be wanted1.9.2 since it landed prior to branching 1.9.2. It's already included.

Comment 10

[Alexander Sack]

when landing such things, could you please be distro friendly and don't bump the lower version in configure.in on your stable branches?

I am fine if you want to bump your full sqlite in your tree, but asking distributions to do that (which is what the configure.in mostly expresses imo) is not really nice.

Can we backout the configure.in part or do you want us to unpatch this in the distro?

Comment 11

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Shawn: Can you comment to the above?

Comment 12

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #10)
> when landing such things, could you please be distro friendly and don't bump
> the lower version in configure.in on your stable branches?
> 
> I am fine if you want to bump your full sqlite in your tree, but asking
> distributions to do that (which is what the configure.in mostly expresses imo)
> is not really nice.

I completely disagree. sdwilsh is pretty good about not just randomly upgrading SQLite. When he does upgrade it, there's usually a very good reason. It would be very unwise for Linux distros to ship Firefox versions based on different versions of SQLite than what the Firefox version is expecting.

> Can we backout the configure.in part or do you want us to unpatch this in the
> distro?

Neither, I hope!

Comment 13

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

If it's being declared as our minimum supported version, that's the official word.  If you want to use a lower version in your distro, that would be equivalent to a code-level change, and you know the drill for that.

Comment 14

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

(In reply to comment #12)
> I completely disagree. sdwilsh is pretty good about not just randomly upgrading
> SQLite. When he does upgrade it, there's usually a very good reason. It would
> be very unwise for Linux distros to ship Firefox versions based on different
> versions of SQLite than what the Firefox version is expecting.
Right.  Specifically, this upgrade fixes a topcrash (bug 503770).  We don't like upgrading SQLite on branch unless we have to.

(In reply to comment #13)
> If it's being declared as our minimum supported version, that's the official
> word.  If you want to use a lower version in your distro, that would be
> equivalent to a code-level change, and you know the drill for that.
+1

Comment 15

[Al Billings [:abillings - ex-MoCo]]

Verified checked into 1.9.1.