Message281700
I haven't had a time to investigate this yet, but I don't think there is an issue with SQLite itself.
Note that pysqlite behaves the same way since version 2.8.0 and I couldn't find a similar report in their issue tracker.
Like Serhiy, I'm also a little puzzled with the reproducer. I think if you want to start an explicit transaction, the preferred way would be to set isolation_level to None. Otherwise, the sqlite3 module will start one implicitly for you (or perhaps I still don't understand PEP 249's transaction model 100% correctly :))
(If we decide that this is not a regression, we should add a test case to cover this use case.) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-11-25 11:20:29 | berker.peksag | set | recipients:
+ berker.peksag, ghaering, jaraco, ned.deily, r.david.murray, socketpair, serhiy.storchaka, xiang.zhang, palaviv, fschulze |
2016-11-25 11:20:29 | berker.peksag | set | messageid: <1480072829.11.0.168735397982.issue28518@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-11-25 11:20:29 | berker.peksag | link | issue28518 messages |
2016-11-25 11:20:28 | berker.peksag | create | |
|