Just read through the documentation again and noticed the Automatic Mixed Mode option [1]. This appears to be a very reasonable solution for our use case. Would you agree?
[1] http://www.h2database.com/html/features.html#auto_mixed_mode On Apr 19, 3:35 am, Noel Grandin <noelgran...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds dodgy - the process seeing the read-only file is going to get its > in-memory structures out of sync with the > on-disk data. > > You should probably explore architectures where the update-process makes some > kind of API available so that the monitor > process can periodically issue a query. > > Andrew wrote: > > I'd like to inquire about using the FILE_LOCK=NO option for the > > following scenario: > > > One process creates an embedded database, opened in standard read/ > > write mode. This process is responsible for all updates to the data. > > We have our own separate locking mechanism to ensure that only one > > instance of this process can be running at any given time. > > > Another monitor process opens this same database in read-only mode, > > and periodically runs simple queries against the data. > > > Is disabling the H2 file lock in this situation considered a safe > > practice? I've explored the FILE_LOCK=SERIALIZED option already, but > > the observed row update latency (about 400 milliseconds) with this > > option enabled is well outside of our tolerance range for database > > performance. > > > thanks, > > Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to h2-database@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to h2-database+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
