Builder::create / open ambiguity

[imbolc]

I was surprised by absence of the Builder::open_or_create method. But then I looked at redb::Builder::create to which native_db::Builder::create is meant to be similar, and it actually is an "open or create":

Opens the specified file as a redb database.

• if the file does not exist, or is an empty file, a new database will be initialized in it
• if the file is a valid redb database, it will be opened
• otherwise this function will return an error

It seems that, if the methods are meant to be consistent, native_db should also upgrade the db on create. Though for me the redb naming seems unintuitive. Why not explicitly call it open_or_create?

[vincent-herlemont]

It's true that it could be more explicit. But for now, I prefer to rely on the redb API.

I am leaving this issue open long-term to consider it.

Just for documentation, here are other cases: It's often the case with several embedded databases sqlite::open which open or create a database implicitly. (rocksdb too)

[imbolc]

I prefer to rely on the redb API.

I'm totally ok with following redb naming. But what about upgrading the db on create then? Only the open calls upgrade::upgrade_underlying_database, so if create means "open or create" as in redb, it seems to be broken. I.e. in case of an existing database the methods don't behave the same.