Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@Darwin4053
Copy link
Contributor

@Darwin4053 Darwin4053 commented Jul 17, 2025

closes #15384

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 16337968461

Details

  • 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
  • 70 unchanged lines in 11 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 65.74%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
pdns/misc.cc 1 59.92%
ext/json11/json11.cpp 2 62.65%
pdns/sstuff.hh 2 57.14%
pdns/opensslsigners.cc 3 61.41%
pdns/recursordist/recpacketcache.hh 3 89.55%
pdns/remote_logger.cc 3 58.04%
pdns/stubresolver.cc 3 77.02%
pdns/ssqlite3.cc 4 67.78%
pdns/recursordist/syncres.cc 6 80.79%
pdns/recursordist/taskqueue.cc 9 35.9%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 16336414032: -0.02%
Covered Lines: 127435
Relevant Lines: 165235

💛 - Coveralls

@miodvallat
Copy link
Contributor

I doubt this change will have any effect.

We currently invoke sqlite3_busy_handler() to set up busyHandler as the, well, busy handler, and this callback always returns non-zero, which means that, regardless of the timeout, sqlite3_step() will never return SQLITE_BUSY.

A first change, for this PR to have a chance to be useful, would be to change the callback to eventually return 0 if the number of times it has been invoked reaches a certain limit, and then the call to sqlite3_busy_timeout() becomes unnecessary.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider using busy_timeout pragma on SQLite backend

3 participants