Wait, what? I thought you agreed with this approach in that thread.
I withdraw my vote until I can get a clearer view. Nick would you mind
re-stating?
-Joan
On 2021-01-08 11:37 p.m., Nick V wrote:
+1 for 1 through 3
-1 for 4 as I think the exception should apply to normal change feeds as
+1 for 1 through 3
-1 for 4 as I think the exception should apply to normal change feeds as well,
as described in the thread
Cheers,
-Nick
> On Jan 8, 2021, at 17:12, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> Thanks, then it's a solid +1 from me.
>
> -Joan
>
>> On 2021-01-08 4:13 p.m., Robert Newson wrote:
Thanks, then it's a solid +1 from me.
-Joan
On 2021-01-08 4:13 p.m., Robert Newson wrote:
You are probably thinking of a possible “group commit”. That is anticipated and
not contradicted by this proposal. This proposal is explicitly about not using
multiple states of the database for a
You are probably thinking of a possible “group commit”. That is anticipated and
not contradicted by this proposal. This proposal is explicitly about not using
multiple states of the database for a single doc lookup, view query, etc.
> On 8 Jan 2021, at 19:53, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> +1.
>
>
+1
-Russell
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:54 AM Joan Touzet wrote:
> +1.
>
> This is for now I presume, as I thought that there was feeling about
> relaxing this restriction somewhat for the 5.0 timeframe? Memory's dim.
>
> -Joan
>
> On 07/01/2021 06:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
+1.
This is for now I presume, as I thought that there was feeling about
relaxing this restriction somewhat for the 5.0 timeframe? Memory's dim.
-Joan
On 07/01/2021 06:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following on from the discussion at
>
+1
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:03 AM Robert Newson wrote:
>
> +1
>
> > On 7 Jan 2021, at 11:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following on from the discussion at
> >
