Yep - but only the three listed on this page:
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=UndoRedo
So they shouldn't be modifying anything in the main DB, only the temporary DB.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Dan <danielk1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Damien Elmes wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, a user has just reported the same primary key error
>> message with shared cache disabled, although the freezing appears to
>> have been fixed.
>>
>> However, when I ask the user to send me their deck, I find that:
>>
>> sqlite> pragma integrity_check;
>> integrity_check
>> ---------------
>> ok
>> sqlite> select id, count(id) from cards group by id having count(id)
>> > 1;
>> sqlite>
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Triggers?
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Damien Elmes <reso...@ichi2.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Some of my users have been reporting strange database problems
>>> recently, which seem to have gone away when I removed a call to
>>> enable_shared_cache(). The problems were noticeable in at least 3.6.1
>>> and 3.6.11, when using databases of 30MB+, and doing large updates
>>> using pysqlite.
>>>
>>> There were two distinct reported problems. One was that the program
>>> would just freeze, with no disk access and CPU usage, seemingly in
>>> the
>>> middle of a DB query, on Win32. I wasn't able to reproduce this on
>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> The other problem was reported by both win32 and mac users, and again
>>> I wasn't able to reproduce it. It resulted in errors like this:
>>>
>>> sqlalchemy.exceptions.IntegrityError: (IntegrityError) PRIMARY KEY
>>> must be unique 'update cards set isDue = 0 where type in (0,1,2) and
>>> priority = 0 and isDue = 1' {}
>>>
>>> .. which is strange, because the primary key on that table is called
>>> 'id' and is not affected by the update call.
>>>
>>> I also had some reports of DB corruption on OSX, but I'm not sure if
>>> that occurred since I upgrade to 3.6.11.
>>>
>>> One other hint is that while I'd been using shared cache mode for at
>>> least 6 months or more, these problems seem to have only surfaced
>>> recently. I'm not sure if that's due to a change in the queries I've
>>> been doing, or the fact that I changed the cache size to a bigger
>>> number, and changed the page size to 4096.
>>>
>>> Anyway, disabling the shared cache appears to have fixed the problem,
>>> and since my program is single threaded and has no need for the
>>> shared
>>> cache, it's not an issue for us anymore. But I thought it's worth
>>> reporting. Have there been any other instances of problems with the
>>> shared cache mode?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Damien
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
