Paxdo Presse wrote: > Indeed, I thought as a second database for images. This may be a good > solution. But there are two flaws: > > - With WAL mode, transactions involving multiple databases are no longer > atomic, whole.
But files are not atomic at all. Do you actually need this for images? > - The transaction will take more time (the database will be occupied longer) > than the solution with image files. Images files have no transaction. So you could do image manipulations in a separate transaction, and it would still be safer than files. :) Regards, Clemens _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
