Hi Marc,
Thanks for your comments! I just got confused that some SQLite webpages (
http://www.sqlite.org/transactional.html,
http://www.sqlite.org/features.html) mention that transactions are durable
after a power loss (the D in ACID); nowhere has it been mentioned that
"immediate durability
Just to throw in my $0.02 as a user
Given the SQL stream of...
COMMIT
Vs.
Except in cases where, in the first example, I have time to inform someone
about the COMMIT before the power loss, there's no functional difference
between the two events. I would hate to think I would ever
I do not observe any loss in durability in WAL mode: it works totally fine.
As for the documentation, http://www.sqlite.org/transactional.html and
http://www.sqlite.org/features.html claim that SQLite is durable during
power failures; and DELETE is the default journal_mode. Also, other pages,
Dear fellow SQLite afficionados,
Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai wrote:
"I expect it wouldn't be a problem with WAL"
Thé SQLite (not wanting, but cobsidering him at leat kind of) Force D. Richard
H. [who does not know Him don't read this message, you won;t
No, I have reported everything. The only thing I missed might be that it's
not "5 seconds" always, but rather the configurable commit interval of the
filesystem, which is by default 5 seconds in most desktop Linux distros.
I only read through the source code of test6.c, and misunderstood that
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:31 AM, thanumalayan mad wrote:
>
> Also, not to spam, but it would be great if you could answer these
> questions for my research (you might send me a reply directly without going
> through the mailing list): [a] Was it always understood that unlink()
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:41 AM, thanumalayan mad wrote:
>
> Expected result: You always find that the transaction had been executed.
> Observed result: You sometimes find that the transaction did not execute.
>
The core team has discussed this. In order to avoid a
Thank you for your replies! I now fully understand (and appreciate) that
the "ACI" part of transactions is the most important. Also, I didn't notice
any of ACI being broken: SQLite guarantees those conditions really well.
However, just to be clear, my "potential bug" affects out-of-the-box Fedora
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai <
madth...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Did anyone look into this? I might be setting some config option wrong,
> so it would be great if you sent me a "you did something wrong" reply if
> you feel that I might have the
On 21 May 2013, at 5:04pm, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai
wrote:
> Did anyone look into this? I might be setting some config option wrong,
> so it would be great if you sent me a "you did something wrong" reply if
> you feel that I might have the wrong config (or
Hi all,
Did anyone look into this? I might be setting some config option wrong,
so it would be great if you sent me a "you did something wrong" reply if
you feel that I might have the wrong config (or might be doing something
totally idiotic).
I tested with a few other Linux machines and a few
Hi All,
I was testing out SQLite with a framework I developed. I believe, while
running on Linux, transactions might not be durable when a power crash
happens immediately after a commit. I observed this using "SQLite version
3.7.16.2 2013-04-12 11:52:43", and kernel "3.8.4-102.fc17.x86_64". Steps
12 matches
Mail list logo