Open
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: b56020d The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
9f83de6 to
2c3f243
Compare
OPFSWriteAheadVFS, concurrent readsOPFSWriteAheadVFS, concurrent reads
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds an option to use the new
OPFSWriteAheadVFSVFS underWASQLiteVFS.Unlike the existing VFS implementations, this one supports concurrent reads through a write-ahead log. To make use of that in the PowerSync SDK, we use a simple concurrency setup:
AsyncConnectionPool, we may use the read worker for read locks if available.This is probably not an optimal setup, but since it's only used as a new feature we can tune this after an initial release. Some obvious concerns:
Semaphoreutility, but I'm a bit worried about resource usage. Especially if users open many tabs at once, we probably don't want each tab to keep multiple read workers open (they listen to a broadcast channel to catch up with the WAL even when idle). We could investigate support for a read pool resizing based on how many queries a tab runs.