On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:47:18PM -0700, James Croall scratched on the wall: > Hi Michael, > > I agree -- while in theory it shouldn't be difficult, the testing and > verification would be painful! And it's unclear to me from glancing through > the code how locking should be handled -- probably just on the first data > file. > > I saw some historic posts on here where people were discussing writing just > such a layer, thought there might be something reusable :-) > > I will work on bringing the customer into the 20th century instead.
I assume using multiple database files to each hold one table (or a subset of tables) is not an option? Will the 2GB limit may still cause problems? You could just open one database and ATTACH the others. As long as the table names are unique, you wouldn't even have to rewrite the queries. It is a tad bit ugly, but less so than modifying the default VFS. I'd be very concerned about locking under NFSv2 as well. You might look into dot-locking instead. NFSv2 has no locking. -j -- Jay A. Kreibich < J A Y @ K R E I B I.C H > "Intelligence is like underwear: it is important that you have it, but showing it to the wrong people has the tendency to make them feel uncomfortable." -- Angela Johnson _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
