Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2014, at 10:27am, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>> If you write your own backup tool that simply calls
>> "sqlite3_backup_step(b, -1)", the entire database is copied in
>> a single atomic transaction.
>
> OP's problem is that he runs several processes which are constantly
On 12 Dec 2014, at 10:27am, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> If you write your own backup tool that simply calls
> "sqlite3_backup_step(b, -1)", the entire database is copied in
> a single atomic transaction.
OP's problem is that he runs several processes which are constantly (every few
seconds) writ
Nick wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2014, at 20:39, David King wrote:
>> Why are you trying to hard to avoid using the backup API? It sounds
>> like it does exactly what you want
>
> Backup API works great if you have periods of no writing.
> However, if a process writes during the backup then the API would st
On 12/12/2014 03:31 AM, Nick wrote:
On 11 Dec 2014, at 10:08, Dan Kennedy wrote:
On 12/11/2014 05:49 AM, Nick wrote:
On 10 Dec 2014, at 07:35, Dan Kennedy wrote:
Strictly speaking the database file may not be well-formed even if there is no
ongoing checkpoint. If:
a) process A opens a re
On 11 Dec 2014, at 20:39, David King wrote:
> Why are you trying to hard to avoid using the backup API? It sounds like it
> does exactly what you want
Backup API works great if you have periods of no writing. However, if a process
writes during the backup then the API would stop and start over
Why are you trying to hard to avoid using the backup API? It sounds like it
does exactly what you want
On 11 Dec 2014, at 12:36, Nick wrote:
>
> On 11 Dec 2014, at 10:43, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know enough about the internals of SQLite to be sure, but various
>> parts of me a
On 11 Dec 2014, at 10:43, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> I don't know enough about the internals of SQLite to be sure, but various
> parts of me are concerned that this is a bad idea. I don't know what WAL
> mode would be like without checkpointing but there has to be a reason for
> checkpointing a
On 11 Dec 2014, at 10:08, Dan Kennedy wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 05:49 AM, Nick wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2014, at 07:35, Dan Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>> Strictly speaking the database file may not be well-formed even if there is
>>> no ongoing checkpoint. If:
>>>
>>> a) process A opens a read transaction,
>
On 10 Dec 2014, at 10:40pm, Nick wrote:
> All the processes would have automatic checkpointing disabled. Just the
> backup process would perform the checkpoint.
I don't know enough about the internals of SQLite to be sure, but various parts
of me are concerned that this is a bad idea. I don'
On 12/11/2014 05:49 AM, Nick wrote:
On 10 Dec 2014, at 07:35, Dan Kennedy wrote:
Strictly speaking the database file may not be well-formed even if there is no
ongoing checkpoint. If:
a) process A opens a read transaction,
b) process B opens and commits a write transaction to the database
On 10 Dec 2014, at 07:35, Dan Kennedy wrote:
> Strictly speaking the database file may not be well-formed even if there is
> no ongoing checkpoint. If:
>
> a) process A opens a read transaction,
> b) process B opens and commits a write transaction to the database,
> c) process C checkpoints
On 10 Dec 2014, at 02:36, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> On 10 Dec 2014, at 12:30am, Nick wrote:
>
>> That's interesting Simon I didn't expect the database not to be trustworthy.
>
> The database will be trustworthy at any instant. Your copy of it will be
> corrupt because the file will be changin
On 12/10/2014 05:06 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 9 Dec 2014, at 8:57pm, Nick wrote:
Environment is Linux with multiple (c. 4-6) processes accessing a single sqlite database
named "test.db".
Backup:
- New process started using cronjob to initiate application checkpoint until
completion.
- rsyn
On 10 Dec 2014, at 12:30am, Nick wrote:
> That's interesting Simon I didn't expect the database not to be trustworthy.
The database will be trustworthy at any instant. Your copy of it will be
corrupt because the file will be changing while you are copying it.
> In WAL mode I thought the data
On 9 Dec 2014, at 22:06, Simon Slavin wrote:
>
> On 9 Dec 2014, at 8:57pm, Nick wrote:
>
>> Environment is Linux with multiple (c. 4-6) processes accessing a single
>> sqlite database named "test.db".
>>
>> Backup:
>> - New process started using cronjob to initiate application checkpoint unt
On 9 Dec 2014, at 8:57pm, Nick wrote:
> Environment is Linux with multiple (c. 4-6) processes accessing a single
> sqlite database named "test.db".
>
> Backup:
> - New process started using cronjob to initiate application checkpoint until
> completion.
> - rsync diff the file "test.db" to ano
Hi,
I'd like to check my understanding of Sqlite in WAL journalling mode. With
automatic checkpointing turned off would the following psuedo-code result in a
online backup approach that allows robust restore of the database with data
fresh up to the last checkpoint?
Environment is Linux with m
17 matches
Mail list logo
