I just realized I'm using default settings... perhaps I should use WAL mode instead?
Thanks, Gerlando On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.fala...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Simon, > than you for your answer. > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2018, at 12:55pm, Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.fala...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I'm trying to implement a logging system based on SQLite, using python3 >> > package apsw. >> > There's one process constantly writing and another one reading. >> > From time to time I get an exception from the writer, complaining the >> > database is locked. >> >> Please set a time of at least 10,000 milliseconds for /all/ connections, >> both reading and writing: >> >> Connection.setbusytimeout(10000) >> >> <https://rogerbinns.github.io/apsw/connection.html?highlight >> =timeout#apsw.Connection.setbusytimeout> >> > > Hmm... are you saying the writer could potentially block for up to 10 > seconds? > If that's the case then I should rethink the whole logging process cause > it might end up losing incoming data if waiting for too long. > In any case, I still don't understand whether the reader would block the > writer or not, and in what phase. > A reader could potentially take a long time (even longer than 10 seconds) > to read all the data... > > >> If you're already doing this, please post again, telling us whether >> you're using two separate connections or passing the connection handle from >> process to process. >> > > It's two separate connections. Is that bad or good? > > Thank you, > Gerlando > > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
