Thanks Olaf. On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Olaf Schmidt <s...@online.de> wrote:
> > "Artur Reilin" <sql...@yuedream.de> schrieb im > Newsbeitrag news:op.u5vno6hp1pq...@rear... > > > If you are using something like an log system it > > would be better in this way, but in apps like an > > shop what wouldn't be so great. (thinking about > > ebay with the bets and such..) > > Of course, but I think I made that already clear, > that the approach should not to be misunderstood as a > "general recommendation" - it really should be used only within > smaller Apps, which don't need e.g. "stacked transactions", > or "complex transactions which could fail" ... Apps which > also only work singlethreaded within a single process ... > ...the timer-based transaction-syncing then only an > "easier applicable workaround" in environments which > cannot - (or don't want to) make use of the more efficient > working async-writer-thread implementation of the SQLite-engine). > > Olaf Schmidt > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- Regards, Bert _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
