couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Candler <B.Cand...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Tail Append Headers
Date Fri, 22 May 2009 21:22:56 GMT
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:46:54PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote:
> > Exactly. It'd be a "trivial" change to the batch=ok feature to add
> > wait=true so that the client hangs open on the connection and receives
> > a 201 Created when the batch is committed. It'd actually be sort of a
> > challenging patch, but I can perhaps add it before 1.0.
> >
> > I've added it to Jira here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-356
> 
> Forgot to mention that you can almost get this now by using batch=ok
> and then when the client wants to be sure that the batch is committed,
> send a POST to /db/_ensure_full_commit
> 
> You'll have a little more http overhead this way but the semantics are
> mostly the same.

Hmm. So what are the semantics? Are you saying that _ensure_full_commit
doesn't actually cause a commit, but waits until the next commit takes
place? (What if the commit had already taken place?)

Also: what exactly is the difference with or without batch=ok? Does batch=ok
mean that the doc sits in CouchDB's RAM buffer, and without it, it gets
written out to the kernel's VFS buffer (also in RAM)? In that case, I can't
really see why they would be any different from the client's point of view.
But I've probably misunderstood.

Regards,

Brian.

Mime
View raw message