couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Antivackis <patrick.antivac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: proposed replication rev history changes
Date Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:50:11 GMT
I'm not sure I understood what you asked.

It would be a conflict of document, that would need either manual correction
or why not an automatic correction applying a move to one of the document,
but at least couch can tell for sure it was not the same document at the
origin.

What I not understand is what today's revision system or proposed revision
system will bring more for this kind of conflict with two different
documents are created with same Id on two different nodes ? Except that with
the new revision proposal, you don't know for sure it was same or different
document at the origin if replications occurs after you trimmed the
reference to the first revision.




2009/2/8 Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>

> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Patrick Antivackis
> <patrick.antivackis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/2/8 Damien Katz <damien@apache.org>
> >
> >> You got everything right except this. It doesn't solve the problem,
> because
> >> on another node, I could have a document that looked like ["1-foo"
> "2-bif"].
> >> That is a real edit conflict that wouldn't be caught by what I think you
> are
> >> proposing.
> >>
> >
> > That's right,  there is a real edit conflict, but at least couchdb can
> > detect it based on the first revision reference that is always kept.
> > If you not keep the reference of the first revision you can arrive to :
> > BaseA : ["1-foo"]
> > BaseB : empty
> > Replication :
> > BaseA : ["1-foo"]
> > BaseB : ["1-foo"]
> > Life goes on :
> > BaseA : ["1-foo" "2-bar" "3-baz" "4-biz"] but as it's trimmed to 3 you
> only
> > keep ["2-bar" "3-baz" "4-biz"]
> > BaseB : ["1-foo" "2-bad" "3-baf" "4-bif"] but as it's trimmed to 3 you
> only
> > keep ["2-bad" "3-baf" "4-bif"]
> > New replication :
> > ????? same Id but no common revision, what we do ? And couch can not even
> > help to say if it was same doc or not at the origin.
> >
>
> Patrick,
>
> I'm pretty sure i see where you're coming from, but can you explain
> what would happen if the same document ID were created on two servers?
> Each server would have a different 'first rev' so who's first rev
> would be carried on in the future?
>
> > This is used during conflict detection to figure out if 2 tree fragments
> >> overlap. We don't actually store a sequential number for each revision,
> we
> >> store a revision tree of numbers, with the root of the tree being the
> offset
> >> from 0 where it was trimmed (technically it's stemmed).
> >>
> >
> > You are right, keep trace of the numbrer of the revision is indeed
> important
> > especially when a same origin document in updated on different nodes.But
> > couldn't it be replace bu a timestamp, this is sequential too and give
> even
> > more information.
> >
> >
> >> Sometimes people can deal with spurious conflicts. This gives you the
> >> option. If you don't want spurious conflicts, don't use this feature.
> >>
> >> And if you want the same document to be editted over and over, 100s of
> >> thousands of times, this is really the only option. The revision history
> >> will get too big and slow down updates tremendously.
> >>
> >> Sure but  I would say it's different use cases. Record management for
> > examples needs to keep track of changes during a period of time. And in
> all
> > CMS/ECM i have worked on, clean up of version is done on time base more
> than
> > on number of revision having occured.
> >
>
> HTH,
> Paul Davis
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message