After this has been merged in, I'll work on the PostgreSQL support.

I updated the task's tag and changed it to be editable by All Users. Is that the right group?

This is done. The relevant commits that resolved it:

Oh, and I believe that adding PostgreSQL support will be much easier than SQLite. It should be able to use schema.sql and all of the MySQL SQL commands unmodified. The only bit that it'll require is a new connection block in the initial setup.

Ooh. I look forward to seeing this implemented, since I currently have a Blogger blog.

@matt OK, with the latest commit on the sqlite-support branch, SQLite support is working.

I have a working variation of schema.sql (called, appropriately enough, sqlite.sql) for SQLite.

As an example, SQLite doesn't support the SQL function NOW(). It also only has five data types - NULL, INTEGER, REAL, TEXT, and BLOB. Yes, that means boolean values are stored as full INTEGERs.

So as I've started testing this, I've discovered there is a vast chasm of differences between normal SQL and SQLite SQL. I'm working on the logic to handle both.

The working branch is here: https://github.com/writeas/writefreely/tree/sqlite-support

Actually, I retract my previous statement. I was thinking in terms of integration tests, not unit tests - the current pattern is fine.

I started working on a proof of concept for this yesterday morning. In the process, I noticed a couple things.

Aye, that sounds perfect.

Probably worth making the filename of the database configurable.