Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of antony.blakey@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.200.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=bm/FRZYxHYQ9SM9Qts5aasURP8ZdNKKkNOPe8ouANmWjfOKNf9RrgdLnA2JmiPN0HS
         Iylcn+Uz+JYkcVolz2CRGkr0FxIYMpk+OHqeRjd8scRZ1xLBhe2lntuknlh72RTx2EaJ
         8CjdMAy6Z5bPxay1FK1D2JFpSep6JjVZrMGb4=
Message-Id: <832E01A3-CD2B-4DA0-98FC-4908FE962396@gmail.com>
From: Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <e282921e0901291519r6d6cf239ya48623b1d0bca04e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Trouble with replication
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:53:16 +1030
References: <20090128153026.GA12384@uk.tiscali.com>
 <BF91C4EF-D461-4EF6-B399-60AB20849E1B@gmail.com>
 <20090128184531.GA15706@uk.tiscali.com>
 <9C0E9C8B-C783-47DE-8504-2CDC98650D99@apache.org>
 <20090129090318.GB6509@uk.tiscali.com>
 <e282921e0901290950n18a29409o2de847c1d1fb594e@mail.gmail.com>
 <91CE1D9D-2D5A-40BA-8D20-D24559BBA0F0@apache.org>
 <20090129210009.GC28166@uk.tiscali.com>
 <A82BF3D2-733A-4C6E-B5E1-8E43039D140B@apache.org>
 <06CD9F6F-D8E8-4057-8454-DE85CA4D1C87@gmail.com>
 <e282921e0901291519r6d6cf239ya48623b1d0bca04e@mail.gmail.com>


On 30/01/2009, at 9:49 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:

> What's happening in this scenario is that B is not getting any revs
> from A. Replication is one-way. I think if you always trigger
> replication both ways, then your nodes will be consistent (assuming
> they accept the same set of updates as valid).

If you have > 2 nodes then that is no longer true. Consider three  
nodes A, B and C where

A: has a validation function F
B: a document that is invalid under F

Replicating B -> C, A -> C is different than A -> C, B -> C, and there  
is no global steady state that can be reached.

Without these non-functional additions, A, B, C will tend to a global  
steady state assuming full replication coverage, regardless of  
ordering. At least that's what I assume from the wiki statement about  
the determinism of conflict resolution. Have I made the wrong  
assumption about that?

Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a  
faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant  
and has forgotten the gift.
   -- Albert Einstein