/ Artifact Content

Artifact e101f27ea02a8387ce46a05be2b1a902a021d37a:

The 5 states of an historical rollback lock as implemented by the
xLock, xUnlock, and xCheckReservedLock methods of the sqlite3_io_methods
objec are:


The wal-index file has a similar locking hierarchy implemented using
the xShmLock method of the sqlite3_vfs object, but with 7
states.  Each connection to a wal-index file must be in one of
the following 7 states:


These roughly correspond to the 5 states of a rollback lock except
that SHARED is split out into 2 states: READ and READ_FULL and
there is an extra RECOVER state used for wal-index reconstruction.

The meanings of the various wal-index locking states is as follows:

   UNLOCKED    - The wal-index is not in use.

   READ        - Some prefix of the wal-index is being read. Additional
                 wal-index information can be appended at any time.  The
                 newly appended content will be ignored by the holder of
                 the READ lock.

   READ_FULL   - The entire wal-index is being read.  No new information
                 can be added to the wal-index.  The holder of a READ_FULL
                 lock promises never to read pages from the database file
                 that are available anywhere in the wal-index.

   WRITE       - It is OK to append to the wal-index file and to adjust
                 the header to indicate the new "last valid frame".

   PENDING     - Waiting on all READ locks to clear so that a
                 CHECKPOINT lock can be acquired.

   CHECKPOINT  - It is OK to write any WAL data into the database file
                 and zero the last valid frame field of the wal-index
                 header.  The wal-index file itself may not be changed
                 other than to zero the last valid frame field in the

   RECOVER     - Held during wal-index recovery.  Used to prevent a
                 race if multiple clients try to recover a wal-index at
                 the same time.

A particular lock manager implementation may coalesce one or more of 
the wal-index locking states, though with a reduction in concurrency.
For example, an implemention might implement only exclusive locking,
in which case all states would be equivalent to CHECKPOINT, meaning that 
only one reader or one writer or one checkpointer could be active at a 
time.  Or, an implementation might combine READ and READ_FULL into 
a single state equivalent to READ, meaning that a writer could
coexist with a reader, but no reader or writers could coexist with a

The lock manager must obey the following rules:

(1)  A READ cannot coexist with CHECKPOINT.
(2)  A READ_FULL cannot coexist with WRITE.
(3)  None of WRITE, PENDING, CHECKPOINT, or RECOVER can coexist.

The SQLite core will obey the next set of rules.  These rules are
assertions on the behavior of the SQLite core which might be verified
during testing using an instrumented lock manager.

(5)  No part of the wal-index will be read without holding either some
     kind of SHM lock or an EXCLUSIVE lock on the original database.
     The original database is the file named in the 2nd parameter to
     the xShmOpen method.

(6)  A holder of a READ_FULL will never read any page of the database
     file that is contained anywhere in the wal-index.

(7)  No part of the wal-index other than the header will be written nor
     will the size of the wal-index grow without holding a WRITE or
     an EXCLUSIVE on the original database file.

(8)  The wal-index header will not be written without holding one of
     WRITE, CHECKPOINT, or RECOVER on the wal-index or an EXCLUSIVE on
     the original database files.

(9)  A CHECKPOINT or RECOVER must be held on the wal-index, or an
     EXCLUSIVE on the original database file, in order to reset the 
     last valid frame counter in the header of the wal-index back to zero.

(10) A WRITE can only increase the last valid frame pointer in the header.

The SQLite core will only ever send requests for UNLOCK, READ, WRITE,
CHECKPOINT, or RECOVER to the lock manager.   The SQLite core will never
request a READ_FULL or PENDING lock though the lock manager may deliver
those locking states in response to READ and CHECKPOINT requests,
respectively, if and only if the requested READ or CHECKPOINT cannot
be delivered.

The following are the allowed lock transitions:

       Original-State     Request         New-State
       --------------     ----------      ----------
(11a)  UNLOCK             READ            READ
(11b)  UNLOCK             READ            READ_FULL
(11c)  UNLOCK             CHECKPOINT      PENDING
(11d)  UNLOCK             CHECKPOINT      CHECKPOINT
(11e)  READ               UNLOCK          UNLOCK
(11f)  READ               WRITE           WRITE
(11g)  READ               RECOVER         RECOVER
(11h)  READ_FULL          UNLOCK          UNLOCK
(11i)  READ_FULL          WRITE           WRITE
(11j)  READ_FULL          RECOVER         RECOVER
(11k)  WRITE              READ            READ
(11l)  PENDING            UNLOCK          UNLOCK
(11n)  CHECKPOINT         UNLOCK          UNLOCK
(11o)  RECOVER            READ            READ

These 15 transitions are all that needs to be supported.  The lock
manager implementation can assert that fact.  The other 27 possible
transitions among the 7 locking states will never occur.