couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen" <ralf.nieuwenhuij...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: My CouchDB feature wish number 1: partial updating
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 13:40:15 GMT
2008/5/7 Michael Hendricks <michael@ndrix.org>:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:00:33AM +0200, Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
>  >   - updates solve the replication issue completely; since updates can
>  > easily be merged. (it is the assumed behavior)
>
>  I think there could still be replication conflicts with an update
>  approach.  For instance, if the original document has
>
>     "pizza" : "cheese"
>
>  and in one database I change it to
>
>     "pizza" : "pepperoni"
>
>  and in another I change it to
>
>     "pizza" : "anchovies"
>
>  one still encounters a conflict.  Those two changes can't both succeed.
>  Perhaps I've overlooked some way to work around this.

True. But that's usually not an issue.
What _is_ an issue, is that one update changed say:

  "key1": "someNewValue"

While the other changed:

  "key2": "someotherNewValue"

And of one these disjoint updates is completely ignored. (which is
currently the behavior)
I would consider a timestamp with updates to be the best juror with conflicts.
I just think the top-level map should be 'merged'.

Mime
View raw message