Hi Igor,
Igor Tandetnik <itandet...@mvps.org> writes:
> On 3/28/2011 3:45 PM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> >
> > The first transaction behaves as if, for some reason, it first obtained
> > the read lock and then tried to upgrade it to the write lock.
>
> No, it first obtained a RESERVED lock, and later tries to promote it to
> EXCLUSIVE lock.
Does this (RESERVED->PENDING->EXCLUSIVE) applies to table locks in the
shared cache as well? My understanding (based on the documentation and
studying the code) is that this only applies to the database pages.
And that the shared cache only has read and write locks.
> You can't have a deadlock with just one transaction being locked out. A
> deadlock, by definition, involves two transactions that mutually prevent
> each other from making progress.
I am running identical transactions in multiple threads in parallel. Two
transactions that execute the same SQL can deadlock.
Thanks,
Boris
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
