Web: Use BEGIN EXCLUSIVE for write transactions
#651
Merged
+8
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 3f3f25b The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
rkistner
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
On the web, use
BEGIN EXCLUSIVEinstead of a regularBEGINwhen starting a write transaction. The motivation for this is:BEGINwill start as a read transaction and then upgrade to a write transaction when necessary. Since we're likely to issue writing statements inwriteTransaction, we can skip the read->write upgrade step.BUSYand then automatically retrying the SQLite call. There were some issues with this and the new Rust sync client. We will fix those in a core extension update, but obtaining a write transaction directly instead of inpowersync_controlcould still avoid some of those retries.