Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=nJtoYXNyHiyUOCoFePbgGaO32TXNZVTTqABQAKPFmPNwcxwDO/pf7PE8ayVYnFjV5l
         /WmBN2cGNcIlPdHB1v12srjbC5V8AEdPtdMq0dgCzhA6fHU4qz5DKzKm/nf5vGwChB8I
         r3aMBMGz1qVYiostvkgbf4gsDi3gcUg1W6gp4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi==UuLebS1usBbyYe5v5xZea5Bn+YwEY4D+riuL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiku23xASr7UJZ2LQDSFwCbNH5gh5gZuUp8rZpT2@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinkeDKMQD3tcC0mi7LYKZr5589KDLTtqSaOF2v4@mail.gmail.com>
	<770C713F-BBA2-4E0C-B9BE-9441A053BCA4@apache.org>
	<AEC2839B-3A89-49C8-928C-D0D773D216B1@geek-it.de>
	<7C48F227-12CA-477E-9581-8E87EE4C1610@apache.org>
	<5A99E2CB-F53E-4435-8225-578946239068@apache.org>
	<AANLkTi==UuLebS1usBbyYe5v5xZea5Bn+YwEY4D+riuL@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 12:08:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinhd8koektKPxOzTQYXQkDnX6rtqwwB++41VWtv@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Data loss
From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:56, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree completely! I immediately thought of this because I wrote that
> change. I spent a while staring at it last night but still can't
> imagine how it's a problem.
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:12, Damien Katz <damien@apache.org> wrote:
>> SVN commit r954043 looks suspicious. Digging further.
>>
>> -Damien
>

I still want to stare at r954043, but it looks to me like there's at
least one situation where we do not commit data correctly during
compaction. This has to do with the way we now use the path to sync
outside the couch_file:process. Check this diff:
http://gist.github.com/513081