So then only one write transaction at a time is allowed per database. Which means there is no advantage, in terms of concurrency, with using shared cache mode. Right?
> On 11/24/2009 4:17 PM, Pavel Ivanov wrote: > > Indeed, it's weird. And I've just realized that if we have two > simultaneous write transactions they both have to write their own > journal whenever they wish to write something to disk. SQLite database > cannot have two different journal files, so it should serialize > transactions whenever they want to actually write something to the > file. Maybe that's what was meant in the doc? I can't say, hopefully > somebody with more knowledge can explain this. > > Pavel > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM, presta <harc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> No, it's one write transaction per table. >>> >> Wierd, according to the doc : "At most one connection to a single shared >> cache may open a write transaction at any one time. This may co-exist with >> any number of read transactions" >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/multiple-threads-with-shared-cache-mode-tp26500974p26502966.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 > > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
