couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolai Teofilov <>
Subject Re: Rep. bug in R...... 1.0.1?
Date Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:16:21 GMT
Hi Adam,

 The words "pull" in step 4 and "push" in step 6 are correct. I exchanged the places of the
curl commands ...

The idea is common scenario ... to have master db and each slave server get local copy of
the master, make local changes ... (attach new files) and send the modified copy back to the
master. The problem appears only if the documents have been updated with new attachments and
only between databases  on two different servers. It looks like by sending back a document
updated with new attachment will affect the _rev number and a kind of side effect appears
so if you try to delete those document on the remote db the last revision of the document
before the update will be still in the database. It could be that this is correct but I think
the delete operation of a document should remove all its revisions as well, correct?

1.   -  make remote_db  (on different machine!)
2.   -  create a doc  on the  remote_db
3.   -  make local_db (on different machine from the remote couchdb!)
4.   - (trigger from the local couchdb!)  remote_db->local_db
5.   - put an attachment on local_db/doc
6.  - trigger from local couchdb!   local_db -> remote_db
7.  - try to delete the remote_db/doc
       the result should be the last _rev is deleted but a copy of the doc is still in the
remote_db with the initial _rev number.

I am almost sure it is a bug because if you try this on a one couchdb server there is no such
a problem. If you try with document without attachment there is no problem as well and the
documents in both last cases are deleted completely.


On 10.09.2010, at 01:44, Adam Kocoloski wrote:

> Hi Nikolai, I'm not sure I understand.  In step 4 you said "pull ......." but what you
actually did was push the local (empty?) test database to the remote server.  After that the
subsequent steps don't make sense.  Can you try describing the steps again?  Best,
> Adam

View raw message