Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.221 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
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=vBxTtcaxlQGOwLFj+S2kMJ+tRNMgDG+1CrCen641IOAbHoRa1gDW6T5iA3dNckFs3S
         L6uZEQNgVBGltUp6Am9lzKxLYag65eatogQxH2q9zBuBxEz70K3mG9ON1r1R0XE4WbuC
         o+hM7ditYIBBUfEGmR8yCz4IItvgdZRtdXYO0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B958BA3.2010304@gmail.com>
References: <ea2499da1003050808s2cd953cfn3b226ef1ee501330@mail.gmail.com>
	 <E46BEF20-5D8A-485B-AA56-40D4C96F4F35@gmail.com>
	 <ea2499da1003080120r26175df6v35140e6beeff4941@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B958BA3.2010304@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:26:22 -0800
Message-ID: <ec7a93a1003081626g23df9ea2k6888bad2973b1423@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Preserving seq order through replication
From: Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org, mhammond@skippinet.com.au
Cc: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc.ochtman@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 15:43, Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> I'm not really up on this in any detail, but isn't there the possibility
> that 'y' will have had the same edit performed on 2 different nodes, whil=
e
> 'x' was only edited on one of them. =C2=A0The change to 'y' will not be
> replicated at all between the 2 nodes with identical edits, whereas 'x' w=
ill
> - meaning 'x' will be seen to arrive later than 'y' on one of the nodes?

Totally.
Depending on any particular seq order is probably a bad idea.
I don't think it's appropriate to assume seq is at all meaningful
except for sending back in the ?since parameter to _changes.
seq for one server should never be assumed to be meaningful on another.