Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 10410 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2010 19:39:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Feb 2010 19:39:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 55465 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2010 19:39:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 55388 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2010 19:39:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 55378 invoked by uid 99); 2 Feb 2010 19:39:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:39:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.180] (HELO mail-px0-f180.google.com) (209.85.216.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:39:29 +0000 Received: by pxi10 with SMTP id 10so409984pxi.13 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=fUBEYPvDyqDS//5+b5VhQvyQAx/+rk7SqOEHUh1Rous=; b=xXh70ilJdFl7KDdWVlVpsm9EJIzO+fAC/5r1mXVu0cXys/m8SPiqP9VbONpEmsj62i rWztKYqnjNOiFTa3kxcRFLZkVF1VMW/rVFQ9Z7VdupbIyWVuCjSn/HzSd+D9zonIOPA/ 5IEXXIW/Eeem3bnCpawYM5b25Z7i3ePeUjqvE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Q/TwhqAHaOa5VASyc+So14gf9pO6G8vVH09cH5nhUMSRQDI3hnqORqAc8MJmLr2/N2 C6GU325yP3xVvUncsxaVM46eUaSV1DZNTUtnJo/kXwk6pEhUrCHO1IDB78Sv3zKmcUE2 zigb82T3EHziRX7IcLvlyqLJCK+92XEfSjR7o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jchris@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.7.38 with SMTP id 38mr4272660wfg.179.1265139548602; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <55047b711002012202j1878120epfb6a34629fcb812b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:39:08 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 09675220725d94d3 Message-ID: Subject: Re: associating UUIDs to DBs From: Chris Anderson To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Randall Leeds wrote: > I'm not entirely happy with this patch and I'd like some help figuring > out what to do about it. > > I foresee problems when database files are copied or backed up on > disk. It's possible to end up with two couchdb instances hosting > databases with the same uuid. The problem is that the uuid is no > longer meaningful, as it doesn't do what it was intended to (uniquely > identify the database). > > Can anyone see a way around this? > I think we don't mind this. As I mentioned above, when we see that 2 db files have the same uuid we can do a fast-forward replication by starting from the lower of the 2 dbs sequence #s for replication. (maybe... Adam, does this sound sane?) -- Chris Anderson http://jchrisa.net http://couch.io