A file-system with COW support would work, but that is a big dependency/constraint to bring into a project, and not always possible/practical. A file based version (snapshot + changes) will be more practical and easier to manage, and also very doable IMHO.
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone else had explored this path. From the feedback so far it seems not. Fredrik On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:23 PM test user <example.com.use...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Fredrik, > > Why does it need to be part of a VFS instead of using a file system with > COW like ZFS? > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:18, Fredrik Larsen <frel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > A copy-on-write IO-path where data is split into static and dynamic parts > > (think snapshots for storage) would be very helpful for our project, . > This > > would simplify backups, testing, moving data around in a multinode > > environment, etc. > > > > Does something like this exist for sqlite? In my head this sounds like an > > relative easy feature to add as IO-stuff is already centralized in the > VFS > > layer. Maybe a new COW-VFS? > > > > Fredrik > > _______________________________________________ > > sqlite-users mailing list > > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
