Hi Nikolai, sorry to be terse, but can you provide a short script that exercises the behaviour? Ideally with placeholders for the two CouchDB URLs so we can fill in values for our testing environment.
Cheers Jan -- On 11 Sep 2010, at 20:16, Nikolai Teofilov wrote: > Hi Adam, > > The words "pull" in step 4 and "push" in step 6 are correct. I exchanged the > places of the curl commands ... > > The idea is common scenario ... to have master db and each slave server get > local copy of the master, make local changes ... (attach new files) and send > the modified copy back to the master. The problem appears only if the > documents have been updated with new attachments and only between databases > on two different servers. It looks like by sending back a document updated > with new attachment will affect the _rev number and a kind of side effect > appears so if you try to delete those document on the remote db the last > revision of the document before the update will be still in the database. It > could be that this is correct but I think the delete operation of a document > should remove all its revisions as well, correct? > > > 1. - make remote_db (on different machine!) > 2. - create a doc on the remote_db > 3. - make local_db (on different machine from the remote couchdb!) > 4. - (trigger from the local couchdb!) remote_db->local_db > 5. - put an attachment on local_db/doc > 6. - trigger from local couchdb! local_db -> remote_db > 7. - try to delete the remote_db/doc > the result should be the last _rev is deleted but a copy of the doc is > still in the remote_db with the initial _rev number. > > I am almost sure it is a bug because if you try this on a one couchdb server > there is no such a problem. If you try with document without attachment there > is no problem as well and the documents in both last cases are deleted > completely. > > Cheers > Nikolai > > > On 10.09.2010, at 01:44, Adam Kocoloski wrote: > >> Hi Nikolai, I'm not sure I understand. In step 4 you said "pull ......." >> but what you actually did was push the local (empty?) test database to the >> remote server. After that the subsequent steps don't make sense. Can you >> try describing the steps again? Best, >> >> Adam >> >
