On Oct 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:20:08 -0600, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: >> On Oct 11, 2018, at 12:26 AM, Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net> 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 sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users