> No, I did not. I am not storing any blobs right now, but... Is the busy > handler going to kick in? I know the busy handler is not the sole answer to > the problem, but it does seem to catch most of my SQLITE_BUSY issues since > all data is pretty small.
No, this SQLITE_BUSY result is not related to database locking and so busy handler is not called. You can force connection closing in case of SQLITE_BUSY result by forcible finalizing of all statements. Use http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/next_stmt.html for iterating all statements and sqlite3_finalize on each of them. After that sqlite3_close should complete successfully. Pavel On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Sam Carleton <scarle...@miltonstreet.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Pavel Ivanov <paiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > The idea is that the copy and nulling happens very quickly where the >> > sqlite3_close is more expensive, do the copy/null very quickly so that if >> > another thread calls Close during the first threads execution of >> > sqlite3_close, the second thread finds m_db null and will not call >> > sqlite3_close. >> >> Wow, if you really relied on that then you did too few of >> mutli-threaded programming. The rule of thumb is: no matter how fast >> you think 2 different operations execute there always will be a >> situation when another thread executes something between those 2 >> operations (and that "something" can be a very big chunk of code). So >> you must protect it with some mutex or you can use atomic swaps (but >> they are platform- and compiler-dependent). >> > > Yea, I know it isn't as safe as it should be, but in this case it is one > class per thread. Why I am doing it, I don't know, old habit that I just > cannot seem to break. In light of your next statement, I think I will > change it;) > > >> Another problem with this code (which is not related to the crash): do >> you know that sqlite3_close can return SQLITE_BUSY when there are some >> statements or BLOB handles still open and not finalized? >> > > No, I did not. I am not storing any blobs right now, but... Is the busy > handler going to kick in? I know the busy handler is not the sole answer to > the problem, but it does seem to catch most of my SQLITE_BUSY issues since > all data is pretty small. > > Sam > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
