[Opendnssec-develop] Minutes of 2012-08-07
sion at nominet.org.uk
Wed Aug 8 08:00:24 UTC 2012
On 08/08/12 08:30, Jerry Lundström wrote:
> Hi all,
> These are my comments on yesterday meeting:
> - Sion explains that not all (older) SQLite installs supported
> transactional behaviour. So we've surrounded it with another lock.
> This may run into a race condition in some situations. Whether an
> install is transactional is not easily deduced by looking at it, or
> querying parameters.
> Actually looks like transactions has been around in SQLite since 2001
> / v2.0 so all SQLite installations today do support transactional
> Just because you have transaction does not mean you can't get dead
> locks, its more the other way around that because of transaction you
> do get dead locks. This is more a matter of database design, SQL usage
> and the type of transaction locking the database engine does
> (database/table/row/column etc).
Transactions guarantee that your work is "all or nothing". Locking
prevents concurrent processes from updating the same row of a table at
the same time.
At the time it was being written it was not clear which distributions
were setting the locking style compile time flag correctly. (If I recall
correctly we were seeing issues on solaris, but then we are possibly
taking about solaris 8?..)
> - Sion adds some concern about duplicating code, as the broad setup of
> each test is often the same.
To be clear I am not too worried about duplicating code. What I was
saying was that the one test I wrote was largely "cut 'n' paste"; and if
we are asking folk who are not so familiar with the tests to write some
it would be useful to have a clip board of code snippets and some
template tests that can form the starting point.
That said, utility functions that can be called would make the tests
More information about the Opendnssec-develop