I doubt you'll ever see this.. Oh well..

I probably should have been explicit in that I'm not arguing in favor of CRDTs, just that the adverse doesn't need to be "send it and accept the collateral".

Draw The Rest Of The Owl energy here, but at least its a nice northern star.

>Example: two people starting to work on the same task in an offline-enabled task tracker. Wouldn't this just mean both people are working on it?

I agree that this means humans intervening.. It sounds like there was a comms breakdown. But rather than doing a first-in-best-dressed, it sounds like accurately recording that both users are in fact working on the same thing is the best option since it surfaces that intervention is required (or maybe its intentional, tools insisting that only one person can work on an item at once annoys me). Sounds much better than quietly blowing away one of the user's changes.

In principle, local-first to me means each instance (and the actions each user carries out on their instance) is sacrosanct. Server's job is to collate it, not decide what the Truth is (by first-in-best-dressed or otherwise).

I just chucked something together to try and demonstrate. I don't see the massive 20x slowdown, only about a 3x slowdown (5x on release build). Still enough to be painful for the use case in question.

https://github.com/Moggers/rusqlitebenchmark

Do you think you could look through it and point out what you think the reason is? I think they've both got the same WAL and mutex settings. Its a very contrived and synthetic example but actually somewhat representative of what the original code wanted to do.

SQLx is great, but I really wish they had a non-async interface. I had to switch a project from sqlx to rusqlite seemingly just due to the overhead of the async machinery. Saw a 20x latency reduction that I narrowed down to "probably async" (sort of hard to tell, I find it very difficult to do perf analysis of async code). I try to avoid discussing async so as to not come off as a frothing-at-the-mouth-chest-thumping-luddite but honestly, if sqlx had a non-async interface I'd be very happy to accept the "you don't need to use it" argument. its the only place where I don't feel like I really have a choice.