>> You mean you will lock this extra-file before doing any update and >> unlock when update is done? Then ok, it will work. But again be aware >> of possible dead locks. >> > > You mean deadlocks are still possible in that scenario? How?
I mean just that I don't know exactly what do you want to do but dead locks should be always kept in mind. Of course if you surround each and every update and insert by locking of this extra-file and will never start transaction earlier than locking the file then probably you're good (I could miss some conditions here). Pavel On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Angus March <an...@uducat.com> wrote: > Pavel Ivanov wrote: >> >>> How does this preclude me from coming up w/my own lock file with >>> POSIX locks? If a bunch of process start making incompatible requests on >>> a single lock file, then they'll be queued and processed in order. I >>> don't see how you can have a deadlock when you have multiple processes >>> putting locks on a single, entire file. >>> >> >> You mean you will lock this extra-file before doing any update and >> unlock when update is done? Then ok, it will work. But again be aware >> of possible dead locks. >> > > You mean deadlocks are still possible in that scenario? How? > _______________________________________________ > 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
