sqlite3_busy_timeout vs BEGIN IMMEDIATE for write contention

Managing Concurrent Write Access

When designing a high-concurrency application using SQLite in WAL mode, the system must handle SQLITE_BUSY errors to prevent transaction failure during lock contention.

One approach is utilizing sqlite3_busy_timeout() to allow the library to automatically retry lock acquisition for a specified duration. An alternative is using BEGIN IMMEDIATE to acquire the write lock at the start of the transaction, effectively shifting the wait period to the beginning of the operation rather than during a mid-transaction commit.

The primary constraint is minimizing the risk of deadlocks while maintaining application responsiveness under heavy write loads.

• Does BEGIN IMMEDIATE provide a more predictable latency profile than a global busy timeout?
• In what scenarios does combining both mechanisms lead to redundant waiting or thread starvation?