Kurt J. Lidl writes: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:25:16AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > Most of the complaints about other DBs is licensing related, but SQLite's > > complaint was also the fact that the past stability record was a bit rocky. > > One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity > in updates. It's not ACID, just like BDB 1.8x isn't ACID. > > Without a write-ahead log, you cannot be sure that the data written > actually made it to stable storage, and as such, you cannot be sure > that your database didn't get corrupted when the process stops in a > non-optimal way.
In what way is SQLite not atomic? The documentation, Atomic Commit In SQLite, suggests that it is: http://www.sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html I don't know that it supports fully ACID (atomic, consist, isolated, durable) transactions or how it handles the various SQL standard transaction isolation levels (Read Uncommitted, Read Committed, Repeatable Read, Serializable) but I believe that updates are atomic and that it does as well as any db (in the face of lying synch. operations, etc...) to handle "non-optimal" stops. g. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
