This was the model that I was using. But I found out that I get a table
lock for dropping tables for no reason when you do interleave steps for
different prepares. Any body needs a proof I can create a test case for you.
No I did not forget to do finalize for the prior prepares.
The better way to do this is:
attach ':memory:' as db2
attach ':memory:' as db3
You can do 10 of these puppies and possibly increase it to 32 or 64
depending on your CPU. Your main database can be ':memory:' as well.
I am going to change my test script to see if the lock problem is solved.
Thanks,
-Alex
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Alex Katebi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't need to open a second connection. The sole connection can be used
> from any thread.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM, vincent cridlig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to use transactions from separate threads, each thread having
>> one connection to a single in-memory db.
>>
>> I just read in the sqlite doc that in-memory sqlite databases (using
>> sqlite3_open(":memory:", ...)) are private to a single connection.
>> Is there a way to open a second connection to the same in-memory database
>> (for example from a second thread)? Has someone ever tried to do (or
>> implement) that?
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________________
>> Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente
>> http://mail.yahoo.fr
>> _______________________________________________
>> sqlite-users mailing list
>> sqlite-users@sqlite.org
>> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
