On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:39, Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I'm not entirely happy with this patch and I'd like some help figuring >> out what to do about it. >> >> I foresee problems when database files are copied or backed up on >> disk. It's possible to end up with two couchdb instances hosting >> databases with the same uuid. The problem is that the uuid is no >> longer meaningful, as it doesn't do what it was intended to (uniquely >> identify the database). >> >> Can anyone see a way around this? >> > > I think we don't mind this. As I mentioned above, when we see that 2 > db files have the same uuid we can do a fast-forward replication by > starting from the lower of the 2 dbs sequence #s for replication. > (maybe... Adam, does this sound sane?)
If changes had been made to both dbs separately then the lower sequence # might be beyond the sequence number at which the histories diverged and the changes to the "younger" db would be lost.
