On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Guillaume Fougnies wrote: >So SQLite is not "portable" on some Unix (more precisely on >recent linux NPTL where file locks seems broken).
SQLite is indeed portable. It works round lock problems as best it can with the current model. It is the POSIX locking implementations that are not portable. IMHO, SQLite should, however, only open a single file per database (based on inode) which should allow threads to override each others locks as the locks will be on a single file. Hey, if I have the time, I might have a crack at it. But I've said things like this before, so don't hold your breath. > >i submitted a patch this month: >http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=1417 > >Best regards, > >Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:56:48PM +0100: Christian Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Marco Bambini wrote: >> >> >I know based on http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q8 that it is not safe >> >to share the same sqlite3 structure between multiple threads. >> >But what if I protect its access with a mutex? >> >It is safe? >> >> >> Until recently, by chance, yes, on some platforms. Recent versions of >> SQLite explicitly disallow it and return an error if tried. >> >> Christian > >-- >Guillaume FOUGNIES >Eulerian Technologies > -- /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS / \
