News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SQLite Is Serverless by squarefoot on Sunday January 26, 2020 @10:08AM (#22152375)
In the old days of DOS I could do that with Clipper 5.2. Two or more PCs using Netbios shared directories could work on the same database, provided that they wouldn't write to the same record. That wasn't a problem because the environment (can't recall for sure if it was Clipper or an external library) allowed single record locking, so I enclosed the lock attempt into a timed spinlock-like block which attempted once per second for 10 or 15 seconds before obtaining the lock or failing with a record busy error. No SQL involved however, and indexes had to be rebuilt by hand like twice a day to be safe. But those were the days when a 486 could crunch a 100.000 records db with multiple indexes very easily.
Re:SQLite Is Serverless by matt2000 on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:52AM (#22153067)
This is the first time I've heard Clipper mentioned in a looong time. I was just talking the other day how useful it was in those days that there were tools that included the database and UI all in one. Everything was a bit easier because the language assumed a database, rather than just using a library to interface with one.
Re:SQLite Is Serverless by int_19h on Monday January 27, 2020 @12:16AM (#22156991)
Pretty much all dBase derivatives had both file-based and record-based locking, that was specifically designed to work in a networked environment with file shares (although NetWare was much more common than NetBIOS back in the day). RLOCK() was the function you had to use for records.