While using the new 3.5.4 sqlite3_enable_shared_cache I ran into a strange lock
situation.
SQLITE_LOCK is returned from an insert statement, even though the
thread/connection performed a successful "begin exclusive" transaction.
begin exclusive
insert into table..
Some additional info:
when the sqlite_lock is returned there is another thread that appears to be
reading the same table. Does the sqlite3 step return sqlite_locked in this case?
Thanks,
Ken
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While using the new 3.5.4 sqlite3_enable_shared_cache I ran into a
Hello,`
Empirically I found that it is exactly true.
Must admit I'm confused but may it is in line with the Shared-Cache
locking model.
This does not mention the EXCLUSIVE locking state.
The most 'secure' locking state it mentions is a write-transaction
and this can coexist with read-transact
Ed,
Dan opened a ticket. I agree the documentation isn't clear on the Exlusive
locking state.
Not really sure, if this is by design or a bug at this stage. I do think its a
great feature of the Shared cache mode to allow table level locking. But I'm
curious with this table level locking what
The ticket has already been resolved, I see. So it has been
considered a bug. In my earlier reply I tried to defend the current
behavour to be in line with the document, http://sqlite.org/
sharedcache.html. I'm happy to change my mind now. Only I miss
something in the model as described in t
Ed,
Sorry if I confused you, a "Write" lock is really an EXCLUSIVE lock per sqlite
documentation. I used the two interchangeably, pardon my error.
A begin exclusive indicates the beginning of a transaction, It escalates the
database lock to an EXCLUSIVE lock. The begin transaction does not imme
No, you did not confuse me. We are talking about different things it
appears. My post refers to the shared-cache locking model (http://
sqlite.org/sharedcache.html). The document is clear by itself. What
makes it confusing, is that a shared cache instance exist as a single
normal connection
So did my post. We are talking about the same thing. Definately confusing, at
least to me..
The problem exists wherein you have two shared connections and one connection
performs a begin exclusive... The other connection was just ignoring the
exclusivity lock and continuing on its merry way and
8 matches
Mail list logo