Re: [sqlite] Another question on single-thread intent

2006-11-03 Thread John Stanton
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

RE: [sqlite] Another question on single-thread intent

2006-11-03 Thread David Gewirtz
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

Re: [sqlite] Another question on single-thread intent

2006-11-02 Thread John Stanton
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