On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Daniel L. Rall wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, David Glasser wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2007 4:59 PM, Dan Christian <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Argh! Not this again. openssl has similar problems (under serf).
> > >
> > > On Nov 19, 2007 1:46 PM, David Glasser <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > Apparently SQLite requires you to compile it with -DSQLITE_THREADSAFE
> > > > to be at all threadsafe. (There's a way to check at runtime
> > > > (sqlite3_threadsafe()) if this is so, but that's an experimental API
> > > > that may vanish.)
> > > > Should we add something to INSTALL telling people they must build
> > > > against a threadsafe SQLite if they are going to be using a thready
> > > > server?
> > >
> > > YES! And configure should verify this. Otherwise, it looks like
> > > subversion is flaky.
> > I don't think it can verify it unless we require 3.5.
> Yup. We could use sqlite3_threadsafe() if we can safely detect it runtime
> for dynamic builds of Subversion (e.g. via dlopen()), or via configure checks
> for static Subversion builds. While not ideal, this would allow us to detect
> cases where newer versions of SQLite which do provide sqlite3_threadsafe()
> were not compiled with -DSQLITE_THREADSAFE=1.
Attached is a (mostly untested) sketch of what I'm suggesting.
Received on Wed Nov 21 09:45:58 2007
- text/plain attachment: patch
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored