> I've been using WikidPad recently and I have some ideas to enhance it.
> I don't want to write about them here, though. My primary concern is
> data safety. I have experienced problems with data exporting many
> times. Perhaps it's due to the fact I use the latest development
> version, and perharps it's due to some problems with my operating
> system (I use WikidPad on both Ubuntu and Arch, and I think I had
> problems on Ubuntu only). Nevertheless, I think I have some solution
> to such a problems, which might arise at any time and in any place.
> I'm thinking about something that could be named a "safe mode of
> work". The idea is simple: two different databases should be used for
> managing our wiki data. Currently only one database is in use, and
> thus when it fails (for some reasons), out data might be damaged or
> lost. (By the way, that's exactly my case.) In this "safe mode" the
> data would be stored in two different databases. It means that each
> save operation would have to store data in two databases, instead of
> just one. Moreover, after such a save of data its integrity would be
> checked (both databases should be equivalent to each other).
I think it's more important to make the current implementation (with one
database!) as reliable as possible.
Data redundancy on application level isn't a solution here.
If there are issues with loss of data that has to be checked and fixed.
Just my $0.02
Like Christian, I think there are not many scenarios where this would be
helpful. Only if code particular to one database type fails it would
help to have two databases, but it is much more probable that parts of
the main code fail which are shared for both databases (simply because
this is much more code than the database handling one).