> Such a library would be called a database. But we’re used to thinking of a database as something server-related, a big box that runs in a data center. It does

> Such a library would be called a database. But we’re used to thinking of a database as something server-related, a big box that runs in a data center. It doesn’t have to be like that! Databases have two parts: a place where data is stored and a place where data is delivered. That second part is usually missing. Yes! A thousand times this! Databases can't just "live on a server somewhere", their code should extend into the clients. The client isn't just a network protocol parser / serialiser, it should implement what is essentially an untrusted, read-only replica. For writes, it should implement what is essentially a local write-ahead log (WAL) either in-memory and optionally fsync-d to local storage. All of this should use the same codebase as the database engine, or machine-generated in multiple languages from some sort of formal specification.