Yes, you have the current model correct. To support Lambda, we'll need to move the lock to LiteFS Cloud and allow writes directly to it. The write performance won't be as fast as a local LiteFS instance that is always the primary though. I'm hoping we could still eek out ~100 write tx/sec if the lambda & LiteFS Cloud instance are physically close (e.g. both in us-east-1).
We do something similar in LiteFS already with something called "write forwarding". It borrows the lock from the primary, sync to the current state, runs the transaction locally through regular SQLite, and then bundles and ships the page changeset back to the primary. It works well but it's slower than local writes.
We do something similar in LiteFS already with something called "write forwarding". It borrows the lock from the primary, sync to the current state, runs the transaction locally through regular SQLite, and then bundles and ships the page changeset back to the primary. It works well but it's slower than local writes.