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 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:27:43 GMT

On 09/02/2009, at 2:35 PM, Paul Davis wrote:

> There is no concept of an "MVCC boundary" anywhere in the code that
> I'm aware of.

Database updates create an MVCC commit, reads are all wrt an MVCC  
commit. MVCC boundaries e.g. commit points, are a fundamental port of  
the Couch low-level architecture. When _bulk_docs was ACID, they were  
exposed in the user-level API.

> I think the bigger point here is that what you're asking for violates
> a huge swath of assumptions baked into the core of CouchDB. Asking
> CouchDB to do consistent inter-document writes is going to require you
> to either change a large amount of internal code or write some very
> specific app code to get what you want.

But it already did consistent inter-document writes - the removal of  
that is what this discussion is about.

> You may be able to get atomic
> interdocument updates on a single node, but this is violated if you do
> so much as try and replicate.

And 'so much as try and replicate' is the issue, because the  
replication model varies for different use cases. In my previous posts  
you'll see that I'm promoting the idea that the local, exclusive- 
replication use-case is significant, and useful. The are useful models  
where replication is a fundamentally different operation than local use.

> IMO, it would be better to not support _bulk_docs for exactly this
> reason. People that use _bulk_docs will end up assuming that the
> atomic properties will carry over into places it doesn't actually get
> passed on to.

But it can for local operations, and replications conflicts can be  
dealt with separately from normal operation.

> It occurs to me that once you get to the point of writing source and
> target database locking, you no longer need _bulk_docs. You'd have
> enough code to do all the atomic interdoc writes you need.

Only by giving up all local concurrency. Locking is only wrt.  
replication vs. local operation. And I think the most recent emails  
are showing that source locking is not as black-and-white as you think  
- it's only wrt compaction, and even then  I think it's restricted to  
a requirement to no compact past the MVCC state being used by the  
replication process, which IMO is a trivial issue because compaction  
cannot invalidate the head MVCC state, and replication request will  
always use the head state in effect at request-time.

> Though it'd
> be rather un-couchy.

CouchDB has wide applicability, and what you regard as un-couchy is  
only relative to a certain use-case. I'm trying to promote a more  
generous interpretation of what CouchDB is, and can be.

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

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn  
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent  
disinclination to do so.
   -- Douglas Adams



Mime
View raw message