On 13 Sep 2016, at 9:00pm, Alex Ward wrote:
> What is the standard idiom to avoid stale data while still allowing all but a
> writing thread not to see uncommitted data?
You should not need to do anything special to arrange this.
> Is there a window of time between a commit
On 9/13/16, Eric Sink wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks.
Thanks for pointing out the issue. I have attempted to improve the
documentation here:
https://www.sqlite.org/wal.html#busy
Further improvements may be forthcoming.
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
On 9/13/2016 4:00 PM, Alex Ward wrote:
We think we are seeing the case where a read on one WAL mode Sqlite database
connection using the C API is reading stale data after a transaction has
committed data changes on another connection.
For instance, a deleted row on one connection is still
Excellent. Thanks.
--
E
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 9/13/16, Eric Sink wrote:
> >
> > I can fit this into your explanation:
> >
> > "Another process might have opened the same database with
> > locking_mode=EXCLUSIVE"
> >
>
On 9/13/16, Eric Sink wrote:
>
> I can fit this into your explanation:
>
> "Another process might have opened the same database with
> locking_mode=EXCLUSIVE"
>
> if I change the word "process" to "thread", and if I assume that
> sqlite3_open_v2() on a WAL-mode file can
We think we are seeing the case where a read on one WAL mode Sqlite database
connection using the C API is reading stale data after a transaction has
committed data changes on another connection.
For instance, a deleted row on one connection is still found by a select on the
other. The
The app had several threads that were frequently doing this:
open the sqlite file
do something
close it
When I changed it to stop opening the file so much and re-use the
connections, the problem went away.
I can fit this into your explanation:
"Another process might have opened the same
This is happening in an Android app. No other process is involved, but the
filesystem there is weird, so I'm focusing on the third possibility you
mentioned.
Thanks,
--
E
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 9/12/16, Eric Sink
Thanks Richard, that's much clearer.
Just one thing: "The page_size pragma will only set in the page size if ..."
The "in" looks out of place :)
-Rowan
On 12 September 2016 at 19:43, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 9/12/16, Rowan Worth wrote:
> > The docs for
9 matches
Mail list logo