verneuil VS dqlite

It'd be process wide. If you want an example can check out the example using a vfs here. There's an explicit passing of vfs there and an implicit usage of it. https://github.com/backtrace-labs/verneuil/blob/main/examples/rusqlite_integration.rs

It doesn't even have to be WAL-based system. Backtrace Labs has a SQLite virtual file system (VFS) called Verneuil that works similarly but works with the rollback journal instead of the WAL.

https://github.com/backtrace-labs/verneuil/ is one way to address the diffing / read replica part of the problem. I believe it's compatible with gossipping: most of the data is in small content-addressed chunks, with small manifests that tell clients what chunks to fetch and how to reassemble them to recreate a sqlite database. There's already client-side caching to persistent storage, and chunks can be fetched on demand.

Sharing replication data P2P, while retaining the simplicity of a single authoritative writer per database, is explicitly part of the project's long-term goals!

If you're interested in this, here are some related projects that all take slightly different approaches:

- LiteSync directly competes with Marmot and supports DDL sync, but is closed source commercial (similar to SQLite EE): https://litesync.io

- dqlite is Canonical's distributed SQLite that depends on c-raft and kernel-level async I/O: https://dqlite.io

- cr-sqlite is a Rust-based loadable extension that adds CRDT changeset generation and reconciliation to SQLite: https://github.com/vlcn-io/cr-sqlite

Slightly related but not really (no multi writer, no C-level SQLite API or other restrictions):

- comdb2 (Bloombergs multi-homed RDMS using SQLite as the frontend)

- rqlite: RDMS with HTTP API and SQLite as the storage engine, used for replication and strong consistency (does not scale writes)

- litestream/LiteFS: disaster recovery replication

- liteserver: active read-only replication (predecessor of LiteSync)

I'd be curious for a similar tuning with Dqlite: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

Anyone knows how the DB this is about, https://rqlite.io/, compares with https://dqlite.io/ by Canonical (both seem to be distributed versions of sqlite)?

For folks' context, the new tool that's being discussed in the thread mentioned by the parent here is litefs [0], as well as which you can also look at rqlite [1] and dqlite [2], which all provide different trade-offs (e.g. rqlite is 'more strongly consistent' than litefs).

[0]: https://github.com/superfly/litefs

[1]: https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite

[2]: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

I presume you're familiar with https://github.com/canonical/dqlite (made by my employer) and https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite (unrelated)? How will mvsqlite compare to those?

Check out dqlite, it's sqlite but with a raft consensus to distribute changes through a log: https://dqlite.io/ You can link it in as a library too, it sounds like exactly what you want.