David Gewirtz wrote:
John Stanton wrote:
Perhaps a thread per open database sync'd on an event and driven by a
queue would give you contention-free operation and avoid the need to
ever have the DB locked.
A thread would post its request to the queue then wait on an event
signifying completi
John Stanton wrote:
> Perhaps a thread per open database sync'd on an event and driven by a
> queue would give you contention-free operation and avoid the need to
> ever have the DB locked.
>
> A thread would post its request to the queue then wait on an event
> signifying completion.
That's
David Gewirtz wrote:
I know the restriction of passing open databases across threads. What I'm
wondering is whether that's really a process/thread issue, or a concern over
making sure two or more threads don't muck with a single database at the
same time.
Basically, I'm exploring how I might imp
I know the restriction of passing open databases across threads. What I'm
wondering is whether that's really a process/thread issue, or a concern over
making sure two or more threads don't muck with a single database at the
same time.
Basically, I'm exploring how I might implement database access
4 matches
Mail list logo
