On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:15:14AM -0400, John scratched on the wall: > As you can tell, I don't have much experience with sql. I was going in the > timeout direction because simply resending the command several seconds > after the locked error occurred seemed to return the correct value. My plan > is to implement Michael's suggestion and if the error continues to occur, > place a rollback in an error handler and move on from there. Is that > reasonable or am I still missing something?
That sounds fine. The main point I was trying to make is that there are some (rare) situations when a timeout value will not solve every problem, even if the server has very light concurrency needs. There are situations when the handler will still return a SQLITE_BUSY error, and you're only choice is to rollback and start over. The timeout should catch and handle the vast, vast majority of SQLITE_BUSY errors, however. -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
