Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
You should at least understand how Firefox 3 bookmarks work. They use the sqlite database and
no longer use the bookmarks.html file.
Fsyncers and curveballs (the Firefox 3 fsync() problem)
Posted May 26, 2008 17:34 UTC (Mon) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
And what difference does it make in regard to the given solution? Sqlite database is just a
file as well.
Posted May 27, 2008 0:10 UTC (Tue) by szh (guest, #23558)
I am asking - why go for this sql db fsync FF2->FF3 regression ? , nobody will make sql
queries to their bookmarks, imho.
Posted May 27, 2008 0:57 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
> nobody will make sql queries to their bookmarks
Posted May 27, 2008 10:03 UTC (Tue) by szh (guest, #23558)
again, does it give FF3 any technical superiority over the FF2, or only speed regression ?
As long as file is small imho thats a bad decision. (and yes, a backup copy of sqlite file +
removing fsync, would/will be a solution)
Posted May 27, 2008 10:30 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
I guess, by looking at FF3B5. FF developers also think so.
Believe it or not, I think this bug is a good thing. If you have a look at the bug itself:
You'll see that important kernel folks got involved, so maybe some ext3 bugs will get fixed.
Also SQLite leading man got involved, so maybe it will get improved as a result. And finally
FF will be better for it.
It's just a bug. It will be fixed (actually, looks like it already was fixed). It's all good.
Posted May 27, 2008 16:19 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It's very good that the problem is found and it's getting fixed. It would probably help a
whole of of people and different applications.
It's still probably very silly to use a SQL database to store bookmarks, even if it's a very
light database engine. Seems like a bunch of people need to be smacked by a cluebat that a
lightly formatted flat text file is superior (simplier/faster) to a SQL database for most
things that people need a database for... (ie: storing small amounts of editable data in a
file on a filesystem)
Personally I liked the bookmarks.html. Makes it very easy to backup my bookmarks and use them
with/in other programs.
Ever used bookmarks.html as a home page?
Posted May 27, 2008 21:19 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
The real need for a database isn't bookmarks, it's history.
Posted May 28, 2008 9:01 UTC (Wed) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122)
> The real need for a database isn't bookmarks, it's history.
The real need for a database isn't history either. It is extensions. You can have a custom
format for history so that given an URL you know whether it is in it or not, and you can list
all of them in the order of time. Easy. But extension is different. You don't really know
what they need, because each of them need different thing. So your only option is to ship
something really generic, in other words, database. If they have to ship a database anyway, I
don't see any reason they are not merging bookmarks and history into the same framework.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds