# PDO\Sqlite: Add transaction mode attribute - Thread: https://externals.io/message/128446 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/128446 - Started by samuel@archte.ch on 2025-08-11T19:35:01+00:00 - Messages: 7 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #128446 — samuel@archte.ch — 2025-08-11T19:35:01+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128446 Hi, I've opened a PR adding a new attribute to PDO\Sqlite: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19317 The change is explained in depth in the PR, but in short, it makes it possible to use immediate/exclusive transaction modes, rather than the default deferred mode, when using $pdo->beginTransaction(). Deferred mode has this particular behavior where if your transaction first reads before writing, it will only wait for other transactions to finish while acquiring the initial shared lock. Then when it tries to upgrade to a write lock it just immediately aborts with SQLITE_BUSY, regardless of your busy_timeout setting. This is a real pain point with using SQLite in production. I've addressed it by adding a new attribute that changes how the PDO driver begins the transaction. Is my understanding correct that this doesn't need an RFC? And if that's the case, is this PR not subject to the PHP 8.5 feature freeze happening this week? The changes are pretty basic so I'd appreciate any reviews that could move this forward. Would love for this to land in PHP 8.5. --- ## #128447 — Morgan — 2025-08-11T23:13:00+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128447 · In reply to: #128446 > Hi, I've opened a PR adding a new attribute to PDO\Sqlite: https:// > github.com/php/php-src/pull/19317 pull/19317? > notification_referrer_id=NT_kwDOAfgLhrQxNzkxMjcwMjYzOTozMzAzMzA5NA#issuecomment-3176177745> > As far as the form the attribute takes goes, an Enum with the values DEFERRED/IMMEDIATE/EXCLUSIVE would do the job. (As for calling it an attribute, I thought at first that what was being suggested was an Attribute, rather than a connection option.) --- ## #128448 — samuel@archte.ch — 2025-08-12T01:07:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128448 · In reply to: #128447 By enums I'm assuming you mean PHP enums. That could work and would solve my issue of trying to represent the values of the attribute (only thing I'm not sure about is Pdo\SqliteTransactionMode being directly in the Pdo namespace). I've included a sample implementation in this comment > > > […] > src/>  > > […] > notification_referrer_id=NT_kwDOAfgLhrQxNzkxMjcwMjYzOTozMzAzMzA5NA#issuecomment- > 3176177745> > > […] > As far as the form the attribute takes goes, an Enum with the values  > DEFERRED/IMMEDIATE/EXCLUSIVE would do the job. > > (As for calling it an attribute, I thought at first that what was > being  > suggested was an Attribute, rather than a connection option.) --- ## #128621 — samuel@archte.ch — 2025-09-03T22:38:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128621 · In reply to: #128448 Hi, Is there anything I could do here to get this reviewed before the 8.5 release? As mentioned earlier the proposed implementation should not be subject to the feature freeze. Thank you. Samuel > By enums I'm assuming you mean PHP enums. That could work and would > solve my issue of trying to represent the values of the attribute > (only thing I'm not sure about is Pdo\SqliteTransactionMode being > directly in the Pdo namespace). I've included a sample implementation > in this comment src/pull/19317#issuecomment-3177353751> > > > > […] > > > > > […] --- ## #128625 — Matteo Beccati — 2025-09-04T07:06:15+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128625 · In reply to: #128621 Hi Samuel, Il 04/09/2025 00:38, Samuel Štancl ha scritto: > Hi, > > Is there anything I could do here to get this reviewed before the 8.5 > release? As mentioned earlier the proposed implementation should not be > subject to the feature freeze. > > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/19317 src/pull/19317> I think the 8.5 ship has sailed. Why should it not be subject to feature freeze? It surely is, unless the RMs approve it. Cheers -- Matteo Beccati --- ## #128630 — samuel@archte.ch — 2025-09-04T08:40:46+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128630 · In reply to: #128625 Hi Matteo, From reading earlier discussions my understanding is the feature freeze only applies to things that need RFCs. With PRs that add simple constants not necessarily needing an RFC. Personally I think the diff in the linked PR itself matches that description well, while the alternative implementation in the comment seems more likely to need an RFC. If I need RM approval how would I go about that. Email one of the RMs individually? Thank you. Samuel Štancl > Hi Samuel, > > Il 04/09/2025 00:38, Samuel Štancl ha scritto: > > […] > 8.5  > > […] > be  > > […] > > […] > > I think the 8.5 ship has sailed. Why should it not be subject to > feature  > freeze? It surely is, unless the RMs approve it. > > > Cheers > --  > Matteo Beccati --- ## #128631 — Derick Rethans — 2025-09-04T10:25:26+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/128446#128631 · In reply to: #128630 >Hi Matteo, > > > […] >only applies to things that need RFCs. With PRs that add simple >constants not necessarily needing an RFC. > >Personally I think the diff in the linked PR itself matches that >description well, while the alternative implementation in the comment >seems more likely to need an RFC. > >If I need RM approval how would I go about that. Email one of the RMs >individually? Flag the PR up to them by requesting a review from @release-managers cheers Derick Hi, Can you please not top-reply on this list? It's on our guidelines.