Dave Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah if I put BEGIN IMMEDIATE in thread1 as well, then it works, but as you say I don't see why I need to do this. Perhaps the implicit transaction which is created in my 1-line INSERT statement isn't an immediate transaction??
It's probably not, but even if so, I still don't see why BEGIN IMMEDIATE in thread2 does not honor the busy timeout.
Seems like there should be a flag or pragma or something to force all transactions to be immediate.
You don't want a transaction initiated by SELECT statement, nor an explicit transaction that only plans to read, to be immediate. Otherwise you would lose the ability to run more than one reader simultaneously.
Igor Tandetnik
