On 09/02/2009, at 4:21 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]
> wrote:
A bit more work is required, I think. In addition to inserting
MVCC commit
point markers in the replication stream, we'd also have to include
all the
document/rev pairs that were part of the _bulk_docs update. As it
stands
today, if one of those documents is updated again it will only show
up at
the later update_seq.
This could actually get pretty hairy, now that I think of it. What
happens
during compaction? Do we save old revisions of a document if the
revision
was part of a _bulk_docs update?
Bulk transactions are starting to sound like they'd need to have a lot
of the same semantics as we've been treating documents as having.
For completeness sake ...
I think you are both correct. Updates belonging to a group would need
to be protected against both compaction and revision stemming, in
order for replication to preserve write dependencies.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.
-- Albert Schweitzer
