[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-763?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12868445#action_12868445
]
Randall Leeds commented on COUCHDB-763:
---------------------------------------
Whatever the cause of the documents showing up in _changes, I'd remove the
critical status if the replicator could handle it gracefully.
Right now, the 500 error that comes back from POSTing to _replicate for this db
is:
{"error":"json_encode","reason":"{bad_term,{couch_db,sort_and_check_atts,\n
[{{not_found,missing},\n {2102,\n
<<47,218,8,211,159,59,233,40,18,92,123,151,106,44,\n
175,158>>}}]}}"}
I've got other things to work on now, but I'll try to track it down more later
and maybe make the replicator more robust at handling this problem if I can.
> duplicate and or missing revisions in changes feed
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-763
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-763
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Database Core
> Affects Versions: 0.10.1
> Reporter: Randall Leeds
> Priority: Critical
>
> I have no idea if this is unique to 0.10.1 or if it shows up on 0.11/trunk
> since I have no clue how to repro.
> If we can identify why this happens we should work to be very sure it's fixed.
> I see something like the following in my changes feed (taken from consecutive
> lines of an actually changes feed):
> {"seq":36527,"id":"anonymized_docid","changes":[{"rev":"2186-967dbcd9d960b77955fcf6048fb219cc"}]},
> {"seq":36530,"id":"anonymized_docid","changes":[{"rev":"2188-ae8481b29fd3a42d5190aba7c13a522b"}]},
> I was under the impression that _changes only showed the newest revision for
> any document.
> Furthermore, the first of these two is actually missing. Querying the
> document with ?revs_info=true shows it as such and this is confirmed by
> trying to query for ?rev=2186-967dbcd9d960b77955fcf6048fb219cc
> 1) Missing revisions should never show up in changes
> 2) Changes shouldn't list a document twice
> 3) This makes replication impossible since the reader tries to open missing
> revisions.
> Mostly for number (3) I'm marking this as critical.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
