On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> Thanks for the info. Is there a third mode possible? Namely all or >> nothing with conflict check, with the understanimg that the conflict >> guarantee is only at commit, and all bets are off after that when >> replicated? >> > > That's what we currently have. It's possible to keep supporting it, but it > doesn't work with any of CouchDB's distributed features. It's only > appropriate for a single node instance, even a hot standby slave will have > inconsistent states. >
I'm asking this with my computer science hat off. Is there room for someone to implement the current behavior on top of a partitioned cluster, by using a consensus-algorithm based transaction manager? If someone is willing to pay the performance cost (and write some code) do the proposed features give enough traction that current-style bulk_docs transactions could be implemented on top of them? Maybe I should put my CS hat on and figure this out, but I'm sure there are others out there who are more motivated on this topic. Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
