[psarna]

First of all, let me start by reiterating the first sentence from the bottomless repo - it's work in heavy progress (and we'll move it under the sqld/ repo soon, to keep everything in one place). Now, answers:

> - Looks like bottomless does automatic restoring of the database? Litestream seems to avoid this, I assume because of concerns about accidentally creating multiple writers on a rolling-deploy (or similar mistake). Any concerns about this possible footgun?

It's a valid concern, but what always happens on boot is starting a new generation (a generation is basically a snapshot of the main file + its continuously replicated WAL), distinguished by a uuid v7, the timestamped one. So even if a collision happens, it would be recoverable - e.g. one of the stray generations should be deleted.

> - Bottomless is a sqlite extension, not a separate process? Pros and cons compared to litestream?

The only con I see is that a bug in the extension could interfere with the database. As for pros: way less maintenance work, because everything is already embedded, we're also hooked into the database via a virtual WAL interface (libSQL-only), so we have full control over when to replicate, without having to observe the .wal file and reason about it from a separate process.

> - Similar questions for sqld. How does sqld handle the lifecycle of deploys and multiple readers/writers talking to the database? Anything a new user should be concerned about?

There are going to be multiple flavors of sqld, but the rough idea would be to trust the users to only launch a single primary. In the current state of the code, replicas contact the primary in order to register themselves, so the model is centralized. Once we build something on top of a consensus algorithm, leader election will be pushed to the algorithm itself.

[maxmcd]

Very cool, thank you for the insights