It is not reasonable to change a database file to read-only in the
middle of a transaction. I suppose sqlite could be changed to detect it,
but why bother?
By the same logic, if another process wrote random bytes in the middle
of an sqlite database file, should sqlite be responsible for recovering
from that as well?
--- Kiran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am currently using SQLite in my application as in Multi-process
> environment. I.e. my application will contain multi-process which will
> handle add/delete request to a single db - (bulk.db). I am using the
> busy_handler concept (with 5ms delay) for locking issues.
>
> However, during testing, when 5 processes is up and running, I by chance
> changed the file permission of bulk.db (chmod 444 bulk.db) to read only. Now
> I see that the sqlite_exe is not able to trap the read-only mode error of
> the database (while it tries to add records) and is just returning a
> busy_handler and thus in loop.
>
> Bottom line, if you are using busy_handler and if DB file permission is
> changed to read-only (manually) instead of throwing an error, SQLite will
> continue triggering busy_handler. Thus not able to handle this situation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car
Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
