> But it should not be the case that replication causes duplicates.  
> Replication uses only idempotent requests, making that unlikely (but  
> I won't say impossible).

I'm a bit surprised by that. Isn't that something the storage engine's  
concurrency control should catch?

Cheers
Jan
--

>
>
> -Damien
>
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, John Evans <john@jpevans.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> FWIW I've been running into these exact same issues.
>>
>> I'll chime in with a me too. I've worked around it by writing a
>> client-side replicator, that loads up all docs from both dbs, and
>> copies any missing docs over to the target db. My requirements mean I
>> don't need to worry about multiple versions of a doc, so this has
>> worked for me for the time being. It would be more convenient to have
>> fast, reliable replication.
>>
>> I'll commit the replicator to CouchRest this week.
>>
>> -- 
>> Chris Anderson
>> http://jchris.mfdz.com
>
>