I think (respectfully) the LLM that probably wrote this overshot the mark here because busy-polling a select does not actually sound better to me than a "kernel file watcher".

Are they joking? SQLite is usually used for single-process (mutliple threads) applications. The proper way to communicate between threads/processes is a ring buffer, where you allocate structs (allocation typically is incrementing a pointer), and futex/eventfd for notifications (+ some spinlocking to avoid going to kernel when the tasks arrive quickly). Why do you need redis for that? If you need persistent tasks, then you can store them in the table, and still use futex for notifications. This polling is inefficient and they should not make it a library which will cause other lazy developers add it to their app.

> honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal

That's 3 ms per second = 0.3% CPU time wasted for every waiting thread.

Like Electron, this feels like written by a web developer and not a real programmer.

Key difference vs SQL polling is that we’re touching metadata instead of data pages. I have work in process to make this work without any polling (innotify, kqueue, mmap’d shm file check) after the original stat(2) direction proved unreliable if lightweight.

Would love your feedback and or contributions in the repo - still figuring out the end shape.

> How it works: honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal.

https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack

    BEGIN IMMEDIATE TRANSACTION; ROLLBACK;

To make it look even more absurd . SQLite is not concurrent and you’ll have tons of problems using it practically .

I’d like to see messages per second.