Thanks Dan. I just found another report regarding the hot journal,
"Hot-Journal with VFS",
https://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org/msg112377.html.
It seems the same issue as I hit.
Thanks,
Lei Chen
Lei Chen 于2018年10月29日周一 下午4:45写道：
> Hi experts,
>
> I'm debugging a
On 10/29/2018 03:45 PM, Lei Chen wrote:
Hi experts,
I'm debugging a tricky issue related to sqlite(3.9.2) database access. This
is on Linux 3.2 kernel. Basically, when the failure occurs, there are two
processes accessing the same -journal file concurrently, see below log.
When daemon scsitgtd
Hi experts,
I'm debugging a tricky issue related to sqlite(3.9.2) database access. This
is on Linux 3.2 kernel. Basically, when the failure occurs, there are two
processes accessing the same -journal file concurrently, see below log.
When daemon scsitgtd wants to "commit" a transaction, it finds
I wrote:
> I would still perform rollbacks for any errors other than the above
> expected SQLITE_BUSY cases, of course, since they indicate something
> else went wrong (such as running out of disk space). I think it's
> safe to say those are all unusual cases though.
Hmm,
On 10/29/07, Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps the best solution is to follow these rules:
>
> IF THE TRANSACTION IS A WRITER (i.e. will eventually write to the db):
> --
> (1) Begin the transaction with 'BEGIN
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/29/07, Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But am I correct in assuming that one way that SQLite provides
serializable transactions is by automatically rolling back
transactions when necessary (and returning SQLITE_IOERR)?
No. That will happen in some
On 10/29/07, Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But am I correct in assuming that one way that SQLite provides
> serializable transactions is by automatically rolling back
> transactions when necessary (and returning SQLITE_IOERR)?
No. That will happen in some specific unavoidable
Its up to you to rollback the transaction.
It would return a SQLITE_BUSY, not an IOERR.
Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But am I correct in assuming that one
way that SQLite provides
serializable transactions is by automatically rolling back
transactions when necessary (and returning
But am I correct in assuming that one way that SQLite provides
serializable transactions is by automatically rolling back
transactions when necessary (and returning SQLITE_IOERR)?
Thanks,
- Richard Klein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
SELECT
> This is true of SQLite because isolation in SQLite
> is "SERIALIZABLE". This is the highest level of isolate
> provided by SQL. Most client/server database engines
> by default implement "READ COMMITTED". The value of
> "balance" might change between the SELECT and the
> UPDATE in MySQL, for
On 10/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is true of SQLite because isolation in SQLite
> is "SERIALIZABLE". This is the highest level of isolate
> provided by SQL. Most client/server database engines
> by default implement "READ COMMITTED". The value of
> "balance"
Richard:
Actually No, process A will not acquire the reserved lock. It failes returning
a sqlite_busy, and must perform a rollback. Even if Process B commits. Process
A will get a sqlite_busy, forcing you to rollback.
In order for the application to be correct the entire transaction must be
That makes sense given SERIALIZABLE transactions.
The entire trasaction will require rollback since it gets a sqlite_busy, Not
just the update. This also has the effect of invalidating the data selected
within the transaction that performs the rollback.
Oracle defaults to Read Committed. But
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION;
> SELECT balance FROM accounts WHERE accountId = '123-45-6789';
> UPDATE accounts SET balance =
> WHERE accountId = '123-45-6789';
> COMMIT;
>
> This is a comman and naive assumption that the balance selected
> will
Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan Kennedy wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 21:38 -0700, Richard Klein wrote:
>> As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
>> it occurred to me that the following race condition could
>> occur.
>>
>> Imagine a joint bank account with a
Trevor Talbot wrote:
On 10/25/07, Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trevor Talbot wrote:
The thing is, SQLite's synchronization mechanism is simpler than most
full-featured SQL databases. In all cases, the point is that if you
are attempting to do simultaneous writes from two
On 10/25/07, Richard Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trevor Talbot wrote:
> > The thing is, SQLite's synchronization mechanism is simpler than most
> > full-featured SQL databases. In all cases, the point is that if you
> > are attempting to do simultaneous writes from two connections, each
>
I am sure that you are correct, that Sqlite's sync mechanism is not
terribly complicated for you and for anyone else who understands the
principles, however it does confuse many users as you see from the
posts to this forum. Simple to use could become simpler to use.
Synchronizing
Dan Kennedy wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 21:38 -0700, Richard Klein wrote:
As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
it occurred to me that the following race condition could
occur.
Imagine a joint bank account with a balance of $10,000.
The wife makes a withdrawal of $1,000
Trevor Talbot wrote:
The thing is, SQLite's synchronization mechanism is simpler than most
full-featured SQL databases. In all cases, the point is that if you
are attempting to do simultaneous writes from two connections, each
connection must be prepared to receive an error, rollback the
Lee Crain wrote:
I've wrapped all of my company's SQLite database accesses in my own API
layer that encapsulates all of our applications' business rules and forces
ALL transactions, no matter how lengthy or trivial, to be atomic by using
a MUTEX to avoid the types of scenarios described below.
The thing is, SQLite's synchronization mechanism is simpler than most
full-featured SQL databases. In all cases, the point is that if you
are attempting to do simultaneous writes from two connections, each
connection must be prepared to receive an error, rollback the
transaction, and try again.
October 24, 2007 10:39 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] Race condition -- fixed?
As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
it occurred to me that the following race condition could
occur.
Imagine a joint bank account with a balance of $10,000.
The wife makes a
A classic solution to that problem is not to perform updates but to
insert transactions, The concept of log file systems to give
concurrency is worth scrutiny.
Richard Klein wrote:
As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
it occurred to me that the following race condition
-users@sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] Race condition -- fixed?
As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
it occurred to me that the following race condition could
occur.
Imagine a joint bank account with a balance of $10,000.
The wife makes a withdrawal of $1,000 at ATM 'A' (serviced
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 21:38 -0700, Richard Klein wrote:
> As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
> it occurred to me that the following race condition could
> occur.
>
> Imagine a joint bank account with a balance of $10,000.
> The wife makes a withdrawal of $1,000 at ATM 'A'
As I was thinking about the locking mechanism in SQLite 3,
it occurred to me that the following race condition could
occur.
Imagine a joint bank account with a balance of $10,000.
The wife makes a withdrawal of $1,000 at ATM 'A' (serviced
by process A in the bank's mainframe), while at the same
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 07:30 -0500, Christopher R. Palmer wrote:
It looks to me like this test assumes that no other process currently has a
lock on this file. If any other process has any lock on this file, I
believe one or both of the locking calls will fail which will
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 07:30 -0500, Christopher R. Palmer wrote:
> It looks to me like this test assumes that no other process currently has a
> lock on this file. If any other process has any lock on this file, I
> believe one or both of the locking calls will fail which will trick sqlite
>
I am using version 3.0.8 of sqlite.
In the course of trying to track down a strange error in my application
where I very infrequently get a database is locked error (even though my
busy timeout is set to some insanely large number, like a billion seconds),
I was looking through the code is
30 matches
Mail list logo
