couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <adam.kocolo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: is update_docs(_, _, _, false) idempotent?
Date Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:13:31 GMT
Thanks, Damien, that's what I had suspected.  Best, Adam

On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Damien Katz wrote:

> Everything the replicator does, except for update the replication  
> records at the end, is idempotent. The updating of documents for  
> replication must be idempotent as it might be racing the same  
> document that's replicating in from another source.
>
> -Damien
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>
>> Jason and I were working through COUCHDB-197 and discussing whether  
>> to retry failed HTTP requests during replication.  GET requests are  
>> surely safe to retry, but after I thought about it for awhile it  
>> seemed like the POSTs that occur during replication are also safe.
>>
>> The POST to _missing_revs on the target server clearly does not  
>> change the state of the server; I assume it's a POST because the  
>> request has a body.  _bulk_docs is not normally an idempotent  
>> operation, but when "new_edits":false is sent along with the docs  
>> it looks like it might be, since no new revisions are generated.
>>
>> Adam
>


Mime
View raw message