Today I saw a APSW note about shared cache mode at
"https://rogerbinns.github.io/apsw/tips.html#shared-cache-mode;, which
led me to
"https://sqlite.org/src/tktview/ebde3f66fc64e21e61ef2854ed1a36dfff884a2f;.
Reading the sqlite page at "https://sqlite.org/sharedcache.html; I see
that section
Hello,
Is there any way to known if one connection participate to shared-cache mode ?
I've read http://sqlite.org/sharedcache.html which specifies how to
set but not how to get the mode!
Regards.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of John Crenshaw
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:49 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
Let's say we have the three connections
hn
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Tom Broadbent
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:33 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
i guess this isn't that compli
...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of John Crenshaw
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:49 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
Almost. Locking happens at a table level in this case, not a database
level. Three different threads can all write
Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Tom Broadbent
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:46 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
oh, right. my bad. i don't mean to share
.
is this right?
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of John Crenshaw
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:38 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
I don't know
n, because otherwise contention is too great.
John
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Tom Broadbent
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:32 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared
: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:32 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] shared cache mode and 'LOCKED'
to be clear...
"in other words, two threads sharing a connection in shared cache mode will
always cause SQLITE_LOCKED (rather than SQLITE_BUSY) when conte
It appears to be up to date.
John
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org
[mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of O'Neill, Owen
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:45 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: [sqlite] shared cache mode
Hi Everyone,
Does anyone know if this page is still up to date with respect to when
you get "SQLITE_LOCKED" when operating in shared cache mode ?
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=DatabaseIsLocked
(I'm trying to solve a two writers problem and am trying to understand
the best way to solve
On this page: http://sqlite.org/sharedcache.html in item 3.0 there's a
missing version number at the end of the last sentence.
Best regards,
Dennis
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
So did my post. We are talking about the same thing. Definately confusing, at
least to me..
The problem exists wherein you have two shared connections and one connection
performs a begin exclusive... The other connection was just ignoring the
exclusivity lock and continuing on its merry way
No, you did not confuse me. We are talking about different things it
appears. My post refers to the shared-cache locking model (http://
sqlite.org/sharedcache.html). The document is clear by itself. What
makes it confusing, is that a shared cache instance exist as a single
normal connection
Ed,
Sorry if I confused you, a "Write" lock is really an EXCLUSIVE lock per sqlite
documentation. I used the two interchangeably, pardon my error.
A begin exclusive indicates the beginning of a transaction, It escalates the
database lock to an EXCLUSIVE lock. The begin transaction does not
The ticket has already been resolved, I see. So it has been
considered a bug. In my earlier reply I tried to defend the current
behavour to be in line with the document, http://sqlite.org/
sharedcache.html. I'm happy to change my mind now. Only I miss
something in the model as described in
Ed,
Dan opened a ticket. I agree the documentation isn't clear on the Exlusive
locking state.
Not really sure, if this is by design or a bug at this stage. I do think its a
great feature of the Shared cache mode to allow table level locking. But I'm
curious with this table level locking what
Hello,`
Empirically I found that it is exactly true.
Must admit I'm confused but may it is in line with the Shared-Cache
locking model.
This does not mention the EXCLUSIVE locking state.
The most 'secure' locking state it mentions is a write-transaction
and this can coexist with
Some additional info:
when the sqlite_lock is returned there is another thread that appears to be
reading the same table. Does the sqlite3 step return sqlite_locked in this case?
Thanks,
Ken
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While using the new 3.5.4 sqlite3_enable_shared_cache I ran into a
While using the new 3.5.4 sqlite3_enable_shared_cache I ran into a strange lock
situation.
SQLITE_LOCK is returned from an insert statement, even though the
thread/connection performed a successful "begin exclusive" transaction.
begin exclusive
insert into
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 08:01 -0800, Peter James wrote:
> On 1/9/07, Dan Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it looks to me like commit #3341 (August 2006) covers this
> up. #3341
> changes things so that the shared-schema is reset whenever any
> connection
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 16:03 -0800, Peter James wrote:
> Hey folks...
>
> The context of this message is sqlite library version 3.3.6, using the
> shared-cache mode, effectively following the test_server.c example.
> Immediately upon switching to shared-cache mode we started seeing errors
> like
On 1/8/07, Peter James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ken. I'm not sure I've explained myself
properly. It's not that I'm calling sqlite3_enable_shared_cache()
multiple times. It's that if I don't maintain a persistent connection while
the server is running I end up with
On 1/8/07, Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You could always implement a sqlite3_open call and store it in the g
variable, and close it when the server quits.
Thanks for your response, Ken. I'm not sure I've explained myself
properly. It's not that I'm calling sqlite3_enable_shared_cache()
Here is a code snipet from my version if the server thread code
I found that it was doing an enable/disable on the shared cache with the
original logic.
You could always implement a sqlite3_open call and store it in the g variable,
and close it when the server quits.
void
Thanks Vitali, and Trevor. I'll poke them instead ;)
> Firefox is now using sqlite. They use shared-cache mode because they want it
> to work over networked drives and they don't want to pay for the
> latency involved.
The "shared cache mode" in sqlite only changes certain behavior for
threads
On 12/6/06, Jay Sprenkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Firefox is now using sqlite. They use shared-cache mode because they want it
to work over networked drives and they don't want to pay for the
latency involved.
The "shared cache mode" in sqlite only changes certain behavior for
threads in
http://www.sqlite.org/sharedcache.html
It's controlled at runtime by the function
int sqlite3_enable_shared_cache(int);
Thus that behaviour is probably controlled by Firefox (assuming it uses a
version of sqlite with cache support compiled in). You'd have to ask them.
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
Good evening,
I'd like to make a request for the next version of sqlite.
It's a big change and will probably get shot down, but you won't know
until you ask.
Firefox is now using sqlite. They use shared-cache mode because they want it
to work over networked drives and they don't want to pay for
As you can tell from this forum, locking and synchronization is the area
where there is least intuitive understanding among users and is the most
consistent source of problems. There must be a deep psychological reason.
I don't think it's deep really, just the most complex part to understand.
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
On 8/29/06, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thankyou. The Firefox people have merely removed their dependance upon
an unreliable resource, cross OS file locking. A prudent design choice.
If they come up with an elegant distributed lock protocol it would be
worth
On 8/29/06, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thankyou. The Firefox people have merely removed their dependance upon
an unreliable resource, cross OS file locking. A prudent design choice.
If they come up with an elegant distributed lock protocol it would be
worth propagating
Thankyou. The Firefox people have merely removed their dependance upon
an unreliable resource, cross OS file locking. A prudent design choice.
If they come up with an elegant distributed lock protocol it would be
worth propagating universally in the light of the success of Firefox and
its
Ritesh Kapoor wrote:
Can you - DRH or someone else provide some more background information
on why locking dosen't work on NFS mounted file systems.
I just tried to find out what the locking problem was but couldn't find
a web page discussing it in any detail. Lots of pages saying there *was*
"Jay Sprenkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you run two instances of firefox you trash
> your own database.
No, you didn't read what I said. Firefox implements their
own locking mechanism, so two instances of firefox will
play nicely together. The problem is when some other
application,
On 8/29/06, Ritesh Kapoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you - DRH or someone else provide some more background information
on why locking dosen't work on NFS mounted file systems.
If its a known issue then is there an SQLite compile time option that
would remove locking - i couldn't find one.
On 8/29/06, John Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
>
> If it breaks because of something you did, then YOU are the bum.
> If it's broken because of the operating system THEY are the bums.
>
Having someone to blame still doesn't make it work. They are have made
the rational
sting times..."
--- Begin Message ---
"Jay Sprenkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> I'm in the design stage of a project and had a question about sqlite
> shared-cache mode.
> The new version of firefox will use mozStorage, which is based on
>
Jay Sprenkle wrote:
The problem is that they have to work on broken operating
systems. I don't know of another way to patch around the
problem. Do you?
nope.
If it breaks because of something you did, then YOU are the bum.
If it's broken because of the operating system THEY are the bums.
The problem is that they have to work on broken operating
systems. I don't know of another way to patch around the
problem. Do you?
nope.
If it breaks because of something you did, then YOU are the bum.
If it's broken because of the operating system THEY are the bums.
"Jay Sprenkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/28/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me emphasize that everything in the previous paragraph is
> > hearsay and supposition and could be wildly incorrect.
>
> Thanks Dr.H.
>
> I hope it's not true. If it's true It really
"Jay Sprenkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> I'm in the design stage of a project and had a question about sqlite
> shared-cache mode.
> The new version of firefox will use mozStorage, which is based on
> sqlite using shared-cache mode. I wan
in advance.
Marc Ruff
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jay Sprenkle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. August 2006 19:07
An: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Betreff: [sqlite] sqlite shared-cache mode usage
Good morning all,
I'm in the design stage of a project and had a question
Good morning all,
I'm in the design stage of a project and had a question about sqlite
shared-cache mode.
The new version of firefox will use mozStorage, which is based on
sqlite using shared-cache mode. I want other programs to be able
read/write to the database but I was told this might
44 matches
Mail list logo
