Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si> writes:
> On 15.03.2011 15:34, Philip Martin wrote:
>> So with the temporary table approach the callback really has to use a
>> separate database connection to read/write the database from within the
>> However I think that is also the case if we were to avoid the table and
>> simply lock the main database; if just one connection was reused it
>> might be attempt to reuse an SQLite statement.
> There's a trick we could use if that's a problem, namely: instead of
> simply creating temporary tables by using the connection's default temp
> database; create another temp *database* per query. It's anonymous, so
> only the code that holds its handle knows about it, and there's no way
> for the callback to access it.
> This would require a bit more code, however, the concept is a reusable
> pattern (and the code for the temp database handling would be reusable,
Is it valid for an application to call proplist and then in the callback
call proplist again, say on a different part of the working copy? To
support it I think we need to avoid using a fixed name for the temporary
database, perhaps we could use a sequence number in the database
I thought we would have this problem with the name of the temporary
table, but we get a database locked error first.
Received on 2011-03-15 21:01:55 CET