Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58392 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2010 15:00:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 17 Nov 2010 15:00:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 70080 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2010 15:01:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 69745 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2010 15:01:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 69736 invoked by uid 99); 17 Nov 2010 15:00:59 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:00:59 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.244.253.218] (HELO mail.traeumt.net) (80.244.253.218) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:00:50 +0000 Received: from dahlia.local (p5799E648.dip.t-dialin.net [87.153.230.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.traeumt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93E343C2B7 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:00:30 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Subject: Re: Forcing document reindex From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:00:29 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <76A109FD-9829-4EAA-9BA1-0FAC29357EA9@apache.org> <7D7C2F35-4630-494D-BD39-C446FCB3486E@apache.org> To: user@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 17 Nov 2010, at 15:16, Nicolas Jessus wrote: >> No. But storing the document with no changes will do the trick. Of = course, > CouchDB will update the _rev field >> in the process. >=20 > That would probably cause concurrency problems with legitimate = updates. Shame. > That would be very useful functionality. Why? Cheers Jan --=20