-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wade Williams wrote: > In my research it appears SQLite may not be a good option, since the > only replication appears to be "lock the database and copy the file to > the new machine."
Others have pointed out the simplicity of doing that. It is really trivial and the whole process is under your control. If you want more granular replication then you can do so by writing your own vfs or virtual table. With vfs your routines are called for SQLite file operations. In your write implementation you could make it write to local disk as well as any number of other machines, although there are lots of failure modes to cope with. With virtual tables you see SQL level operations on tables, rows and columns and again would copy stuff to local disk as well as remote. Using vfs or virtual tables would be a fair bit of code. Alternatively you can do a hybrid. For example rsync would do a really good job of replication and only sends deltas. You can reuse the existing default VFS for your platform but override the sync method. That way you know when the database is in a state that should be replicated. Roger -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklBkFAACgkQmOOfHg372QS8SQCfalQfnTK+N7vBL5gTq5vit9Q0 580An2qDsZOzqNkpgzh0pfzHkk6HGC5a =MEtK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
