fix shellcheck

ci

@max you've been blocking this for almost a week now, could you please do a review?

CI

Sorry, but it seems to me like you didn't really address what I said:

address feedback + cmake workaround

That said, does the variable type really matter? It doesn't seem like a great use of people's time to figure out a way to revise this...

update

update

fix revision

I messed up the git, sorry, I'm fixing this

update

update

address feedback

As I said in the description

cargo fmt

This doesn't work because Corrosion does not support the same installation method as those other dependencies

Requesting review for the same reason as in https://phab.comm.dev/D4861#140658

Requesting review for the same reason as in https://phab.comm.dev/D4861#140658

Requesting review for the same reason as in https://phab.comm.dev/D4861#140658

Ok, once your diff is landed, I'm going to rebase to it and take your version removing mine, no problem. How about the rest of this diff?

Ok, done

Weird that some cmake rules don't allow upper case letters for variable names (which is pretty standard I'd say), the regex is: [a-z][a-z0-9_]+

this init might be called from a short lived thread and we want the init thread to live as long as it needs

Yet one more reason why I'd avoid detach here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/54207121/15854120

remove redundant log

I ran performance tests for this. Here's the code: https://github.com/karol-bisztyga/cpp-playground/tree/sqlite-performance-tests

rename to on_database_open

address feedback

I could not apply this diff locally, could you please fix this? I tried to apply this after the 2 previous diffs from this stack.

Adding @tomek as blocking so he can see it.

Yes, I checked and these tests are not really unit.

Can we just abandon this? It's 3 vs 1 in the advantage of doing so. It should be natural to just throw away the idea instead of still trying to prove that it's good even if there's 2vs1. The arguments are pretty clear, I perceive continuing the discussion here to be inefficient and pointless.

Not feeling too good about reviewing this, sorry.

Duplicate of D4052

Sorry, but I don't really understand why we have to do that.

It would be more readable if you wrapped the diffs into a stack.

In the description of this diff you say

renamse function to stable