sqlite3 and dates

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 02/18/2015 01:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb at gmx.de> writes:
>> On 18.02.2015 08:05, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> But if you need more facilities than SQLite3 can offer, maybe it's
>>> time to move up to a full database server, instead of local files.
>>> Switching to PostgreSQL will give you all those kinds of features,
>>> plus a lot of other things that I would have thought pretty basic -
>>> like ALTER TABLE. It was quite a surprise to learn that SQLite3 didn't
>>> support that.
>>
>> I see you're running a lawnmower. Maybe you should switch to a combine
>> harvester. That'll get you extra features like a reciprocating knife
>> cutter bar. I was quite surprised that regular lawnmowers don't support
>> those.
> 
> Chris has pointed out one flaw in this analogy; I'll address another.
> 
> A feature like 'ALTER TABLE' is not equivalent to a "reciprocating knife
> cutter bar". I'm in agreement that it is a pretty basic SQL feature, and
> it doesn't appear to conflict with the narrow focus that we all agree is
> appropriate for SQLite.

No, you and Chris are way off base and Johannes is correct.  
He was pointing out that there are many applications that can 
benefit from a database and a full-blown, bells and whistles 
solution like Postgresql is often overkill in that (very common)
case.  His analogy is quite apt and I wish I'd thought of it. 

> So you're mocking such an expectation as though it's expecting something
> wildly niche. I think you're propping up a straw man there; the
> expectation is quite simple and its absence from SQLite is astonishing.
> Your attempted mockery does not, IMO, hit home.

It has already been pointed out that Sqlite *does* have ALTER 
TABLE so you are either deliberately propagating false information 
or not paying attention.

The only thing basic that a (claimed) relational database needs 
to support is the basic relational operations of which ALTER 
TABLE is not one,  And if one insists on ALTER TALE the minimal
requirement there is that it support RENAME.  You and Chris are
confusing convenience with necessity.

The success and wide adoption of Sqlite is pretty clear evidence 
that there are many applications that can benefit from its use.
Sqllite gets used because of a very important feature that 
Postgresql is missing -- the ability to embed a database in an 
application without requiring the installation and maintenance 
of an entire separate client-server infrastructure.  If you are 
tempted to trivialize that feature you might want to scan the
Postgresql mail list where that feature is regularly requested 
for Postgresql.