There is one degenerate case, which has been discussed a few times on this
list. With PRAGMA journal_mode=DELETE (the default), the atomic signal that
marks a transaction being committed is the deletion of the rollback
journal. Deleting a file is a directory level operation, which means there
are t
> If Commit returns with SQLITE_OK, then YES, it is handed off to the disk
> with some caveats, namely:
>
> A - We are assuming the Python sqlite3 wrapper you use doesn't do
> obfuscation of any sort and directly calls the sqlite3 API and returns the
> direct result from those calls. If you haven't
On 2017/11/24 10:47 AM, Blagovest Buyukliev wrote:
Let's say we have the following Python code:
import sqlite3
conn = sqlite3.connect('mydb.db')
c = conn.cursor()
c.execute("INSERT INTO ...")
conn.commit()
c.execute("INSERT INTO ...")
conn.commit()
Can it be assumed that after conn.commit() h
Let's say we have the following Python code:
import sqlite3
conn = sqlite3.connect('mydb.db')
c = conn.cursor()
c.execute("INSERT INTO ...")
conn.commit()
c.execute("INSERT INTO ...")
conn.commit()
Can it be assumed that after conn.commit() has returned, fsync() has
been called on the file and (a
You can use the SQLITE_BUSY returned by sqlite3_step to synchronize.
Just pause and resubmit the call when you get it.
arbalest06 wrote:
about this synchronization of multiple writers, can you please explain on how
to make this possible? or your just saying that i need to make a daemon that
wil
about this synchronization of multiple writers, can you please explain on how
to make this possible? or your just saying that i need to make a daemon that
will eventually synchronize the writers?
John Stanton-3 wrote:
>
> Multiple writers merely have to be synchronized.
>
> arbalest06 wrote:
Multiple writers merely have to be synchronized.
arbalest06 wrote:
so there is really no way that multiple processes can write into the
database?..but multiple processes can read at the same time right?..
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
arbalest06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
q#1: is it possible that mu
On 11/28/07, arbalest06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok..thanx for that..now if process A is writing into the database, and
> process B attempts to write, does sqlite take note of B's attempt and gives
> the permission to B when A is done? like would it be a queue that the first
> process that att
ok..thanx for that..now if process A is writing into the database, and
process B attempts to write, does sqlite take note of B's attempt and gives
the permission to B when A is done? like would it be a queue that the first
process that attempted to write should be given priority to write? or is it
>so there is really no way that multiple processes can write into the
database?..but multiple processes can read at the >>same time right?..
--Yes
-Sreedhar
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>
> arbalest06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> q#1: is it possible that multiple users can write into the database
>
so there is really no way that multiple processes can write into the
database?..but multiple processes can read at the same time right?..
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>
> arbalest06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> q#1: is it possible that multiple users can write into the database
>> at the same time?
>
good day!
thanx guys for helping me out..i got it working already..i just
misunderstood your solutions, that's why it took me a while to get it
right.. =^D
now i have another question, still related to this topic, but more on
theoretical..
q#1: is it possible that multiple users can write into
Why not just test the status returned by sqlite3_step? Use
sqlite3_prepare_v2 to make the returned status give more information.
When you get an error just finalize your COMMIT statement and move your
pointer from the prepared COMMIT statement to a ROLLBACK and shortcut
the transaction. Inst
On 11/26/07, arbalest06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Stanton-3 wrote:
> > All you need to do is to test the returned status of your sqlite3_step
> > calls and if you get an error launch an SQL statement "ROLLBACK" and
> > bail out of the transaction. If there are no errors you complete your
good day!
i think its really a good solution to this problem. However, im required to
implement the c apis of sqlite..so i need to use the sqlite3_commit_hook and
sqlite3_rollback_hook..im doing some prototyping to see their
functionalities but i really cant make it work..and i also cant find som
All you need to do is to test the returned status of your sqlite3_step
calls and if you get an error launch an SQL statement "ROLLBACK" and
bail out of the transaction. If there are no errors you complete your
transaction with an SQL "COMMIT".
sqlite_prepare_v2 SQL statements
exec BEGI
good day!..
i have a list of records that i want to insert in my database..if ever an
error occurred ( e.g. insert was not successful ), i want to undo all the
previous inserts that i have done..to do this, i have read that i would need
to use sqlite3_commit_hook and sqlite3_rollback_hook..i have
On Jul 28, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Edwin Knoppert wrote:
And i wish for a test if the transaction is already set or not,
without using a callback.
You already can:
"
int sqlite3_get_autocommit(sqlite3*);
Test to see whether or not the database connection is in autocommit
mode. Return TRUE i
And i wish for a test if the transaction is already set or not, without
using a callback.
Even better, nested tranactions would be the best.
:)
- Original Message -
From: "Marco Bambini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: [sq
I need to know when a commit or a rollback is executed, I know that I
can use the sqlite_commit_hook routine to be notified of a commit
command, but what about rollback?
Is there a way to know (or to be notified) when a rollback happens?
Thanks a lot for your help,
Marco Bambini
20 matches
Mail list logo
