Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-15 Thread Matthew L. Creech
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Pavel Ivanov wrote: >> I don't think so.  Just like the older SQLite journal system, it's important >> that the WAL files survive through a crash. > > I believe WAL file is not a problem here (despite some confusing macro > name that Matthew

Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-15 Thread Pavel Ivanov
> I don't think so.  Just like the older SQLite journal system, it's important > that the WAL files survive through a crash. I believe WAL file is not a problem here (despite some confusing macro name that Matthew proposed). The problem is SHM file which don't have to survive - SQLite rebuilds

Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-15 Thread Simon Slavin
On 15 Jul 2010, at 4:52pm, Matthew L. Creech wrote: > This exists in many Linux systems as "/dev/shm", or even "/tmp" would > work fine for a lot of users. I don't think so. Just like the older SQLite journal system, it's important that the WAL files survive through a crash. SQLite finds the

Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-15 Thread Matthew L. Creech
So if I'm reading the documentation correctly: The wal-index is in shared memory, and so technically it does not have to have a name in the host computer filesystem. Custom VFS implementations are free to implement shared memory in any way they see fit, but the default unix and windows

Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-13 Thread Max Vlasov
> > > In testing the latest SQLite snapshot with WAL enabled, it seems that > > there's no way to use a database in a read-only location. > > > > Documentation on the developers' current view of this issue can be found > here: > > > In my opinion it's ok, WAL already has special conditions on

Re: [sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-13 Thread Richard Hipp
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Matthew L. Creech wrote: > In testing the latest SQLite snapshot with WAL enabled, it seems that > there's no way to use a database in a read-only location. > Documentation on the developers' current view of this issue can be found here:

[sqlite] WAL: no longer able to use read-only databases?

2010-07-09 Thread Matthew L. Creech
In testing the latest SQLite snapshot with WAL enabled, it seems that there's no way to use a database in a read-only location. For example, let's say I've created a database as root, then closed it (cleanly): $ ls -l /flash/alarms.db* -rw-r--r--1 root root 36864 Jan 1 00:14