couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: couchdb transactions changes
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:52:28 GMT

On 09/02/2009, at 4:21 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski <adam.kocoloski@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>>
>> A bit more work is required, I think.  In addition to inserting  
>> MVCC commit
>> point markers in the replication stream, we'd also have to include  
>> all the
>> document/rev pairs that were part of the _bulk_docs update.  As it  
>> stands
>> today, if one of those documents is updated again it will only show  
>> up at
>> the later update_seq.
>>
>> This could actually get pretty hairy, now that I think of it.  What  
>> happens
>> during compaction?  Do we save old revisions of a document if the  
>> revision
>> was part of a _bulk_docs update?
>>
>
> Bulk transactions are starting to sound like they'd need to have a lot
> of the same semantics as we've been treating documents as having.

For completeness sake ...

I think you are both correct. Updates belonging to a group would need  
to be protected against both compaction and revision stemming, in  
order for replication to preserve write dependencies.

Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.
  -- Albert Schweitzer


Mime
View raw message