couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Szabo, Viktor (Enterprise Infrastructure)" <Viktor.Sz...@morganstanley.com>
Subject RE: possible compact bug in 1.1.1
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:18:29 GMT
I'd rather know about the fact that I haven't just successfully created a doc, but
re-submitted a revision that was already known - and is already obsolete as revisions
with higher version numbers already exist.

Cheers,
Viktor

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcello Nuccio [mailto:marcello.nuccio@gmail.com] 
Sent: 23 November 2011 13:41
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Subject: Re: possible compact bug in 1.1.1

Can you elaborate on why you want a conflict?
I find it confusing to have a conflict when, in fact, there can't be any conflict since nothing
has changed.

Marcello

2011/11/23 Szabo, Viktor (Enterprise Infrastructure)
<Viktor.Szabo@morganstanley.com>:
> Thanks Paul, this makes sense.
>
> If it counts, I vote for forcing a conflict ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Viktor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Davis [mailto:paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com]
> Sent: 22 November 2011 20:54
> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Subject: Re: possible compact bug in 1.1.1
>
>
> Your example here is actually hitting a very specific edge case as demonstrated by Marcello's
test. As of many versions ago, revisions are generated using a hashing scheme of the document
contents. In your particular case the requests you're issuing contain the same identical data
in such a way that CouchDB will generate a revision of the doc.
>
> Given this, we then have to look at how this plays into replication.
> Basically, when we merge the revision trees we get to the case where it's "oh, we already
have this version, cool" because we do already have this version.
>
> Whether or not that behavior is best, or if we should force a conflict if we don't add
a leaf during a write is another question. In other words, the system is working fine, but
this particular behavior can be a bit unexpected.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have
received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify
the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege.
Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor
electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access these links, please notify
us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley
you consent to the foregoing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained
herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section
975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the
sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege.
Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor
electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you cannot access these links, please notify
us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley
you consent to the foregoing.

Mime
View raw message