On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net>wrote:
> > 4. Quoth the raven: > > "3. Transactions that involve changes against multiple ATTACHed > databases > are atomic for each individual database, but are not atomic across all > databases > as a set." > > I greatly hope that this limitation could go away. I consider that > SQLite's > ability to make multiple databases subject to a common transaction is very > powerful, and I would even argue, essential. > > I hope that some variation of the method used now with rollback journals > can be > applied to databases with WALs, so that the latter can take part in > cross-database transactions. > > I don't see anything in the WAL design that this couldn't be done without > much > complexity. > See http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theorem The semantics of ATTACH imply Partition. In the new WAL design, readers never block, which is the same as Accessible. Hence, we must forgo cross-database atomic commits (what the CAP theorem calls "Consistent"). -- --------------------- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
