Cory Nelson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> > wrote: >> I think that it should be possible to configure SQLite to be strictly >> read-only >> in every respect, such that if with such configuration SQLite is told to >> open a >> database that would need updating from a journal or WAL, it would fail with >> some >> appropriate error rather than fixing the database. This in contrast to the >> approach of apply the journal or WAL and then don't change anything further; >> the >> latter is also important to support but users should have a choice between >> the >> two options. -- Darren Duncan > > +1
Oh! Oh! I just thought of a third option ... SQLite can be configured to be strictly read-only in every respect but that if the database would need updating from a journal or WAL, SQLite would go ahead and do this but only in mapped memory whether plain RAM or a shadow file in a temp directory. This option means absolutely no changes to the actual SQLite database files but users would then still be able to read from the database. There should be a number of applications for that scenario, and as far as I know SQLite already practices some memory mapping so much of the necessary code may already exist. Or a stripped down version of this is that SQLite can apply the journal/WAL to a copy of the database file it first makes in a temp directory, and then use that readonly as usual. -- Darren Duncan _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
