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 <>
In-reply-to <>
2010/7/11 Terry J. Reedy <>

> Terry J. Reedy <> 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 ( ).

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

Ryan Kelly wrote the following:

I have a theory, based on a quick perusal of the sqlite3 bindings

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!

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.


File name Uploaded
unnamed nagylzs, 2010-07-11.05:29:51
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