On Jun 22, 2009, at 6:10 PM, João Eiras wrote: > Hello! > > I developing an single threaded app (pre-established fact, can't > change this), and to keep the UI usable, when sqlite is executing, > between multiple calls to sqlite3_step, I just break away and let the > main message loop run a bit more. If the query i executing has an > "order by" clause, then sqlite3_step will not return until it has > processed the entire result set in memory, so it can be sorted. > > My doubt is the following: if from the progress callback (set with > sqlite3_progress_handler) I return non 0 and therefore I get > SQLITE_INTERRUPT from the call to sqlite3_step, is the sqlite3_stmt > object still in a valid state and will the query resume normally if I > pass the same sqlite3_stmt object back to sqlite3_step again ?
No. Next call on the statement handle should be sqlite3_reset() or sqlite3_finalize(). Dan. > This > way I could try to interrupt the statement many times so I can > continue to process the main loop to get the UI going. > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
