On Oct 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:20:08 -0600, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2018, at 12:26 AM, Darren Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 8>< --------
>
>>> This makes me think that it would be useful, if it doesn't already,
>>> for Fossil to have something analogous to a database replication feature.
>>
>> That's pretty much what Fossil *is*: a replicated database.
[snip]
> This is nothing like database replication as generally understood, which
> is commonly done by applying redo (write-ahead) logs from the other side,
> but it is exactly what Fossil needs.
I agree that what Fossil does is not the same thing as general-purpose
relational database replication, but it doesn’t need to be general-purpose.
Fossil’s synchronization mechanism is custom-tailored to its specific purpose.
If you were hoping to use Fossil as a general-purpose SQLite replication
system, then yeah, it’s not going to work for you. You might want to look at
Bedrock:
http://bedrockdb.com/
> The interlocking of artifacts by cryptographic hashes does seem very much
> like the same idea as blockchain
Relevant: https://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/blockchain.md
I prefer the term Merkle tree, as it gets you away from all the hype around
cryptocurrencies, but drh prefers blockchain, so that’s what I use now when
talking about Fossil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
