On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:20:48PM +0530, Sreekumar TP scratched on the wall:
> so if stmt1 & stmt2 are executed on different threads , but on the same
> connection, they would not block each other?
They would not block each other due to database access locks.
They may or may not block each
so if stmt1 & stmt2 are executed on different threads , but on the same
connection, they would not block each other?
Sreekumar
On Feb 6, 2012 8:08 PM, "Igor Tandetnik" wrote:
> Sreekumar TP wrote:
> > well, if stmt1 is a write transaction, it would
Sreekumar TP wrote:
> well, if stmt1 is a write transaction, it would aquire an exclusive lock.
> if stmt2 is a read transaction, it would fail acquiring a shared lock
The concept of a transaction exists on a per-connection basis, not
per-statement. Transaction isolation
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 07:46:18PM +0530, Sreekumar TP scratched on the wall:
> well, if stmt1 is a write transaction, it would aquire an exclusive lock.
> if stmt2 is a read transaction, it would fail acquiring a shared lock since
> the exclusive lock is not released. . unless sqlite decides to
well, if stmt1 is a write transaction, it would aquire an exclusive lock.
if stmt2 is a read transaction, it would fail acquiring a shared lock since
the exclusive lock is not released. . unless sqlite decides to 'downgrade'
the exclusive lock to a 'shared' lock.
Sreekumar
On Feb 6, 2012 7:07 PM,
Sreekumar TP wrote:
> Why is this treated as a a single transaction?
Well, because that's how SQLite works. Why shouldn't it be?
--
Igor Tandetnik
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Why is this treated as a a single transaction?
Sreekumar
On Feb 6, 2012 6:27 PM, "Igor Tandetnik" wrote:
> Sreekumar TP wrote:
> > I have a nested transaction as follows -
> >
> > sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt1..)
> > sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt2..)
>
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
> Sreekumar TP wrote:
> > I have a nested transaction as follows -
> >
> > sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt1..)
> > sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt2..)
> >
> > sqlite3_step(stmt1)
> > sqlite3_step(stmt2)
Sreekumar TP wrote:
> I have a nested transaction as follows -
>
> sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt1..)
> sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt2..)
>
> sqlite3_step(stmt1)
> sqlite3_step(stmt2)
> sqlite3_reset(stmt2)
> sqlite3_step(stmt1)
There is only one transaction here - an
Hi,
I have a nested transaction as follows -
sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt1..)
sqlite3_prepare_v2(db, stmt2..)
sqlite3_step(stmt1)
sqlite3_step(stmt2)
sqlite3_reset(stmt2)
sqlite3_step(stmt1)
(1) SQLITE , as I understand does not support nested transaction, hence the
the above statement
10 matches
Mail list logo