Good job! But I think lock a random byte from ?shared byterange? is enough to implement the shared file lock. Locking whole 510 bytes may take a lower performance. Why do you do so?
???? ???:Richard Hippdrh at sqlite.org ???:SQLite mailing listsqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org ????:2016?4?7?(??)?21:35 ??:Re: [sqlite] Why SQLite lock 510 bytes for shared lock? On 4/7/16, sanhua.zh sanhua.zh at foxmail.com wrote: I found the code and the comment at [unixLock] of os_unix.h is different. The comment say that a shared lock will lock a random byte from ?shared byte range?(which is 510 bytes length). But the code show that it locks the whole ?shared byte range?. The comment is legacy from the locking protocol used by Windows95, which lacks the ability to do a shared file lock. I'll fix the comment. -- D. Richard Hipp drh at sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
