Also, I seem to recall on swiki that even reads benefit from transaction
wrapping. Like Christian, I have wrapped any series of reads where the
data need to be consistent (at that moment, as opposed to database
consistency). I would welcome a BEGIN (READONLY) statement.
---Keith
******************************************************
- I'm not a professional; I just get paid to do this.
- Things I've learned about multithreaded programming:
123... PPArrvooottieedcc ttm ueelvvteeirrtyyhtt
rhheiianndgge dwi hnpi rctohhg eri aslm omscitanalgt
iowcbh,je engceltvo ebwrah lip,co hso srci abonlt ehb
.ee^Nr waicscee snsoetd 'aotb jtehcet -slaomcea lt'il
m^Ne from two or more threads
******************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Locking in 3.0.5
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Matt Wilson wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Christian Smith wrote:
>>
>> Add a new "BEGIN [TRANSACTION] FOR READONLY" statement, which begins
>> the transaction with a read lock only and doesn't allow the
>> transaction to even try to promote to a write lock.
>
>Why do you need a transaction at all if you're not going to commit?
>
>In my code, readers never use BEGIN, only writers do.
A transaction gives you a snapshot in time of the database. You may need
to do more than one query, and require a consistent snapshot for the
duration of the multiple queries.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Matt
>
--
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS
/ \
