couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Randall Leeds (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-763) duplicate and or missing revisions in changes feed
Date Mon, 17 May 2010 23:34:42 GMT


Randall Leeds commented on COUCHDB-763:

Whatever the cause of the documents showing up in _changes, I'd remove the critical status
if the replicator could handle it gracefully.
Right now, the 500 error that comes back from POSTing to _replicate for this db is:

     [{{not_found,missing},\n                      {2102,\n                       <<47,218,8,211,159,59,233,40,18,92,123,151,106,44,\n

I've got other things to work on now, but I'll try to track it down more later and maybe make
the replicator more robust at handling this problem if I can.

> duplicate and or missing revisions in changes feed
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: COUCHDB-763
>                 URL:
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Database Core
>    Affects Versions: 0.10.1
>            Reporter: Randall Leeds
>            Priority: Critical
> I have no idea if this is unique to 0.10.1 or if it shows up on 0.11/trunk since I have
no clue how to repro.
> If we can identify why this happens we should work to be very sure it's fixed.
> I see something like the following in my changes feed (taken from consecutive lines of
an actually changes feed):
> {"seq":36527,"id":"anonymized_docid","changes":[{"rev":"2186-967dbcd9d960b77955fcf6048fb219cc"}]},
> {"seq":36530,"id":"anonymized_docid","changes":[{"rev":"2188-ae8481b29fd3a42d5190aba7c13a522b"}]},
> I was under the impression that _changes only showed the newest revision for any document.
> Furthermore, the first of these two is actually missing. Querying the document with ?revs_info=true
shows it as such and this is confirmed by trying to query for ?rev=2186-967dbcd9d960b77955fcf6048fb219cc
> 1) Missing revisions should never show up in changes
> 2) Changes shouldn't list a document twice
> 3) This makes replication impossible since the reader tries to open missing revisions.
> Mostly for number (3) I'm marking this as critical.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message