有些函数，比如INDEX'ing，可能会花费很长时间——而且在运行时它会锁定整个数据库。在这种情况下，它甚至可能不使用日志文件!

因此，最好/唯一的方法来检查您的数据库是否被锁定，因为一个进程正在积极地写入它(因此你应该让它独自呆着，直到它完成它的操作)是md5(或md5sum在某些系统)文件两次。 如果你得到一个不同的校验和，数据库正在被写入，你真的真的真的不想杀死这个进程，因为如果你这样做，你很容易得到一个损坏的表/数据库。

我要重申一下，因为这很重要——解决方案不是找到锁程序并杀死它——而是找出数据库是否有一个很好的写锁，然后从那里开始。有时候正确的解决方法就是喝杯咖啡休息一下。

The only way to create this locked-but-not-being-written-to situation is if your program runs BEGIN EXCLUSIVE, because it wanted to do some table alterations or something, then for whatever reason never sends an END afterwards, and the process never terminates. All three conditions being met is highly unlikely in any properly-written code, and as such 99 times out of 100 when someone wants to kill -9 their locking process, the locking process is actually locking your database for a good reason. Programmers don't typically add the BEGIN EXCLUSIVE condition unless they really need to, because it prevents concurrency and increases user complaints. SQLite itself only adds it when it really needs to (like when indexing).

Finally, the 'locked' status does not exist INSIDE the file as several answers have stated - it resides in the Operating System's kernel. The process which ran BEGIN EXCLUSIVE has requested from the OS a lock be placed on the file. Even if your exclusive process has crashed, your OS will be able to figure out if it should maintain the file lock or not!! It is not possible to end up with a database which is locked but no process is actively locking it!! When it comes to seeing which process is locking the file, it's typically better to use lsof rather than fuser (this is a good demonstration of why: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/94316/fuser-vs-lsof-to-check-files-in-use). Alternatively if you have DTrace (OSX) you can use iosnoop on the file.

我在使用Delphi和LiteDAC组件时得到了这个错误。 事实证明，它只发生在运行我的应用程序从Delphi IDE，如果连接属性设置为True的SQLite连接组件(在这种情况下TLiteConnection)。

我的锁是由系统崩溃引起的，而不是由挂起进程引起的。为了解决这个问题，我简单地重命名了文件，然后将其复制回原来的名称和位置。

使用Linux shell将是:

mv mydata.db temp.db
cp temp.db mydata.db

删除-journal文件听起来是个糟糕的主意。它允许sqlite在崩溃后将数据库回滚到一致的状态。如果在数据库处于不一致状态时删除它，则会留下一个损坏的数据库。引用sqlite站点的一个页面:

If a crash or power loss does occur and a hot journal is left on the disk, it is essential that the original database file and the hot journal remain on disk with their original names until the database file is opened by another SQLite process and rolled back. [...] We suspect that a common failure mode for SQLite recovery happens like this: A power failure occurs. After power is restored, a well-meaning user or system administrator begins looking around on the disk for damage. They see their database file named "important.data". This file is perhaps familiar to them. But after the crash, there is also a hot journal named "important.data-journal". The user then deletes the hot journal, thinking that they are helping to cleanup the system. We know of no way to prevent this other than user education.

The rollback is supposed to happen automatically the next time the database is opened, but it will fail if the process can't lock the database. As others have said, one possible reason for this is that another process currently has it open. Another possibility is a stale NFS lock, if the database is on an NFS volume. In that case, a workaround is to replace the database file with a fresh copy that isn't locked on the NFS server (mv database.db original.db; cp original.db database.db). Note that the sqlite FAQ recommends caution regarding concurrent access to databases on NFS volumes, because of buggy implementations of NFS file locking.

我无法解释为什么删除一个-journal文件会让你锁定一个数据库，而你以前不能。这是可复制的吗?

顺便说一下，-journal文件的存在并不一定意味着发生了崩溃或有要回滚的更改。Sqlite有几种不同的日志模式，在PERSIST或TRUNCATE模式下，它始终保留-journal文件，并更改内容以指示是否有要回滚的部分事务。

我在Mac OS X 10.5.7上从终端会话运行Python脚本时遇到了同样的问题。尽管我已经停止了脚本，并且终端窗口位于命令提示符处，但它在下次运行时仍然会给出这个错误。解决方案是关闭终端窗口，然后再次打开它。我觉得没道理，但奏效了。

如果一个进程在SQLite DB上有一个锁，并且崩溃了，那么这个DB将永远处于锁定状态。这就是问题所在。并不是其他进程有锁。