On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Igor Tandetnik >wrote:
>
> > Afriza N. Arief wrote:
> > > What is the correct way of detecting existing transaction?
> >
> > sqlite3_get_autocommit
> >
>
> Correct. Or, you could just always use SAVEPOINT which works the same as
> BEGIN if you are not already in a transaction.
>
>
My understanding is that using [SAVEPOINT's automatic] BEGIN is more prone
to deadlocks than BEGIN IMMEDIATE if there are many read-then-write
transactions; and SAVEPOINT only allows automatic BEGIN DEFERRED. This is
because multiple transactions may hold the SHARED locks and multiple of them
may then tries to get RESERVED in the same transaction. I am not using WAL
and want to rely on sqlite3_busy_timeout() instead of using more complex
error handling.
This understanding leads me to always use BEGIN IMMEDIATE for
read-then-maybe-write transactions as well as read-then-always-write
transactions.
Is my understanding correct?
Regards,
Afriza N. Arief
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
