couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <>
Subject Re: The replicator needs a superuser mode
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:46:17 GMT
-1 on _skip_validation and new role

One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function for this
purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not a database feature.

+0 on _dump/_load

If it ships raw .couch files I'm totally against it because I think the HTTP
API should remain as independent of implementation details as possible. If
it is non-incremental I don't see significant benefit, unless it's just to
traverse the document index and ignore the sequence index as a way to skip
reads, but this seems like a weak argument. If it's incremental, well, then,
that's replication, and we already have that.


On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:40, Adam Kocoloski <> wrote:

> Hi Jean-Pierre, I'm not quite sure I follow that line of reasoning.  A user
> with _admin privileges on the database can easily remove any validation
> functions prior to writing today.  In my proposal skipping validation would
> require _admin rights and an explicit opt-in on a per-request basis.  What
> are you trying to guard against with those validation functions?  Best,
> Adam
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Jean-Pierre Fiset wrote:
> > I understand the issue brought by Adam since in our CouchDb application,
> there is a need to have a replicator role and the validation functions skip
> most of the tests if the role is set for the current user.
> >
> > On the other hand, at the current time, I am not in favour of making
> super users for the sake of replication. Although it might solve the
> particular problem stated, it removes the ability for a design document to
> enforce some "invariant" properties of a database.
> >
> > Since there is already a way to allow a "replicator" to perform any
> changes (role + proper validation function), I do not see the need for this
> change. Since the super replicator user removes the ability that a database
> has to protect the consistency of its data, and that there does not seem to
> be a work-around, I would rather not see this change pushed to CouchDb.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On 11-08-16 10:26 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> >> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database
> look like that one".  We're unable to do that in the general case today
> because of the combination of validation functions and out-of-order document
> transfers.  It's entirely possible for a document to be saved in the source
> DB prior to the installation of a ddoc containing a validation function that
> would have rejected the document, for the replicator to install the ddoc in
> the target DB before replicating the other document, and for the other
> document to then be rejected by the target DB.
> >>
> >> I propose we add a role which allows a user to bypass validation, or
> else extend that privilege to the _admin role.  We should still validate
> updates by default and add a way (a new qs param, for instance) to indicate
> that validation should be skipped for a particular update.  Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Adam
> >

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