couchdb-replication mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dale Harvey <d...@arandomurl.com>
Subject Re: rev hash stability
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:20:54 GMT
Does anyone have a compelling reason for this optimisation existing?

I cant think of many reasons for a user to be sending the same writes to
different servers then not wanting them to conflict, I feel like its an
anti pattern and I feel like if I make seperate writes and they dont
conflict when I replicate, something is broken. Considering where there are
a lot of huge and fairly easy wins in replication, spending any time on
this almost never touched case doesnt seem worth it.

PouchDB just uses random revs, the only people that have cared have known
the inner working of couchdb, a pouchdb user has never been confused by the
behaviour as far as I can remember.

On 17 October 2014 13:45, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I'd already opened an issue to track this down:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-2338
>
> If anyone has some plan, it better to be there.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Chris Anderson <jchris@couchbase.com>
> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be cool if we all generated interoperable revision hashes?
> >
> > I can't point any fingers because as far as I can tell, Couchbase is
> > promulgating at least 3 different revision hash generation schemes.
> >
> > I've filed an issue for us here:
> > https://github.com/couchbase/mobile/issues/3
> >
> > Part of the problem is CouchDB's use of term_to_binary:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb-couch/blob/d28af185295d4618b489c050bcc71407e89891f1/src/couch_db.erl#L820
> >
> > I've seen this discussed informally, but I don't know if anyone has a
> > tractable plan to get us there.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > Chris Anderson  @jchris
> > http://www.couchbase.com
>

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