Author nagylzs
Recipients docs@python, georg.brandl, ghaering, nagylzs, terry.reedy
Date 2010-07-11.05:29:53
SpamBayes Score 0.0771832
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <AANLkTin_qHuQmCJlQG8rRA3EBV-tJ4as7qsE-di-Vw34@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1278806418.7.0.55551521475.issue8145@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
2010/7/11 Terry J. Reedy <report@bugs.python.org>

>
> Terry J. Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> added the comment:
>
> If the content of the patch is correct, it looks ready to apply, with only
> a touch of editing. Do we have a resident expert of sqlite3? Or Laszlo, do
> you have a reference for the statements made?
>

Sorry, the only reference I have is that mailing list thread (
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2010-March/1239374.html ).

There you can find an example with SQL statements, showing the problem.

Ryan Kelly wrote the following:

<quote>
I have a theory, based on a quick perusal of the sqlite3 bindings
source.

The bindings think that "SAVEPOINT sp1" is a "non-DML, non-query"
statement. So when isolation_level is something other than None, this
statement implicitly commits the current transaction and throws away
your savepoints!
</quote>

So the problem is with the sqlite binding code, not sqlite itself. I'm not
an expert in C, so I'm not sure I can help more.

Thanks,

   Laszlo
Files
File name Uploaded
unnamed nagylzs, 2010-07-11.05:29:51
History
Date User Action Args
2010-07-11 05:29:54nagylzssetrecipients: + nagylzs, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, ghaering, docs@python
2010-07-11 05:29:53nagylzslinkissue8145 messages
2010-07-11 05:29:53nagylzscreate