I don't know what Dan meant by his words but AFAIK there's no mutex making exclusive grab of shared cache by sqlite3_step() call. There is only mutex making sqlite3_step() execution exclusive for connection object.
Pavel On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, presta <harc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm confused according to Dan Kennedy : > > "Each shared-cache has its own mutex. The mutex is held for the duration > of each sqlite3_step() call. So the way you're defining it here, you > can't have "real" concurrency when using shared-cache mode in any case. " > > So, it's a little bit "antagonist" to say "with shared cache they will be > parallelized pretty effectively in the same file too" > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Asynchronous-I-O-and-shared-cache-tp26402983p26407922.html > Sent from the SQLite mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
