On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:40:08PM -0500, Pavel Ivanov scratched on the wall: > >> Another option is to start IMMEDIATE transaction in the second process > >> to avoid this course of action altogether. > > > > ?Yes. ?That won't fix the issue (you'll still get contention issues > > ?that will require restarting the transaction) but they'll show up > > ?at the beginning of the transaction, rather than the end. > > And because they happen at the beginning of transaction one can deal > with that with a simple statement retry just like Mikolaj deals with > SQLITE_BUSY after a single INSERT in the first process I guess. So he > won't see it as "transaction restarts" in this case, just statement > retries. That's why it can be seen as fixing the issue.
Right... it doesn't get rid contention and of the posibility of an SQLITE_BUSY, but-- from a code sturcture standpoint-- it often makes recovery much simpler. -j -- Jay A. Kreibich < J A Y @ K R E I B I.C H > "Intelligence is like underwear: it is important that you have it, but showing it to the wrong people has the tendency to make them feel uncomfortable." -- Angela Johnson _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
