Hacker News Reader

Comment by uniqueuid | Hacker News Reader

Very cool. Now we need exactly this but for sqlite. Decentral offline databases that can sync.

It doesn't appear to be doing much more than replication though. https://litestream.io does that for sqlite already. (Edit for clarity) GitDB seem to have more "distributed" ideas in their roadmap for v3 maybe.

Litestream is awesome, but I don't see that it enables multi-way merges yet. Am I wrong?

Litestream author here. You're correct. Also, there's no plans for multi-master replication right now. I do think it'd be an interesting project to make a eventually consistent distributed database using the SQLite session extension[1] but I haven't put much thought into that.

[1]: https://www.sqlite.org/sessionintro.html

I keep hoping that you'll eventually write this :)

Let me know when you do so I can chip in with some money.

Are you sure you want to use sqlite if your workload is mostly multiple, independent writers?

Yes because I want to do offline sync (i.e. latency between syncs anything between 1 second and 1 week), yet index and query the current local state (which includes previously synced items).

If this sounds like an append-only log that's precisely correct; I just want it to work efficiently with fixed memory and ideally as an embedded library. Thus sqlite.

GitDB also doesn't handle merge conflicts, so I'm not convinced it would handle multiple clients well. The It's again marked as something they might do in the future someday. I suspect this is pretty fragile. (Note: I was _not_ claiming litestream would do such a thing. Just replication.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com