Resolves#2378.
```
`ALTER TABLE _ RENAME TO _`/limbo_rename_table/
time: [15.645 ms 15.741 ms 15.850 ms]
Found 12 outliers among 100 measurements (12.00%)
8 (8.00%) high mild
4 (4.00%) high severe
`ALTER TABLE _ RENAME TO _`/sqlite_rename_table/
time: [34.728 ms 35.260 ms 35.955 ms]
Found 15 outliers among 100 measurements (15.00%)
8 (8.00%) high mild
7 (7.00%) high severe
```
<img width="1000" height="199" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-
attachments/assets/ad943355-b57d-43d9-8a84-850461b8af41" />
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#2399
Closes#2431
Discovered while fuzzing #2086
## What
We update `schema_version` whenever the schema changes
## Problem
Probably unintentionally, we were calling `SetCookie` in a loop for each
row in the target table, instead of only once at the end. This means 2
things:
- For large `n`, this is a lot of unnecessary instructions
- For `n==0`, `SetCookie` doesn't get called at all -> the schema won't
get marked as having been updated -> conns can operate on a stale schema
## Fix
Lift `SetCookie` out of the loop
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Closes#2432
WAL API shouldn't be exposed by default because this is relatively
dangerous API which we use internally and ordinary users shouldn't not
be interested in it.
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@iki.fi>
Closes#2424
This should be safe to do as:
1. page cache is private per connection
2. since this connection wrote the flushed pages/frames, they are up to
date from its perspective
3. multiple concurrent statements inside one connection are not
snapshot-transactional even in sqlite
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@iki.fi>
Closes#2407
While working on #2151 I saw myself forced to do things like:
```rust
assert_eq!(
6,
*result
.next()
.await?
.unwrap()
.get_value(0)?
.as_integer()
.unwrap()
);
```
Just to get a simple value from a row, now with this PR users can just
do:
```rust
assert_eq!(6, result.get::<i32>(0)?);
```
(Thanks libsql devs, this is so much better!)
Closes#2377
This will save some work when yielding to IO. Previously, on every
invocation, if the record was a packed record, we parsed it and iterated
through the values to check for nulls. Now, the pre-seeking work is done
only once.
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Closes#2394
One step further to help to simplify the API for users.
This is in core and not in Rust bind because, in core,
this could benefit a broader set of users/developers
Unfortunately it seems we are never reaching the point to remove state
machines, so might as well make it easier to make.
There are two points that must be highlighted:
1. There is a `StateTransition` trait implemented like:
```rust
pub trait StateTransition {
type State;
type Context;
fn transition<'a>(&mut self, context: &Self::Context) ->
Result<TransitionResult>;
fn finalize<'a>(&mut self, context: &Self::Context) -> Result<()>;
fn is_finalized(&self) -> bool;
}
```
where there exists `transition` which tries to move state forward, and
`finalize` which marks the state machine as "finalized" so that **no
other call to finalize will forward the state and it will panic instead.
2. Before, we would store the state of a state machine inside the
callee's struct, but I'm proposing we do something different where the
callee will return the state machine and the caller will be responsible
of advancing it. This way we don't need to track many reset operations
in case of failures or rollbacks, and instead we could simply drop a
state machine and all other nested state machines will drop in a
cascade.
Closes#2384
Unfortunately it seems we are never reaching the point to remove state
machines, so might as well make it easier to make.
There are two points that must be highlighted:
1. There is a `StateTransition` trait implemented like:
```rust
pub trait StateTransition {
type State;
type Context;
fn transition<'a>(&mut self, context: &Self::Context) ->
Result<TransitionResult>;
fn finalize<'a>(&mut self, context: &Self::Context) -> Result<()>;
fn is_finalized(&self) -> bool;
}
```
where there exists `transition` which tries to move state forward, and
`finalize` which marks the state machine as "finalized" so that **no
other call to finalize will forward the state and it will panic instead.
2. Before, we would store the state of a state machine inside the
callee's struct, but I'm proposing we do something different where the
callee will return the state machine and the caller will be responsible
of advancing it. This way we don't need to track many reset operations
in case of failures or rollbacks, and instead we could simply drop a
state machine and all other nested state machines will drop in a
cascade.
